project evaluation case study

• Open access
• Published: 27 November 2020

Designing process evaluations using case study to explore the context of complex interventions evaluated in trials

• Aileen Grant 1 ,
• Carol Bugge 2 &
• Mary Wells 3  

Trials volume  21 , Article number:  982 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

10 Citations

5 Altmetric

Metrics details

Process evaluations are an important component of an effectiveness evaluation as they focus on understanding the relationship between interventions and context to explain how and why interventions work or fail, and whether they can be transferred to other settings and populations. However, historically, context has not been sufficiently explored and reported resulting in the poor uptake of trial results. Therefore, suitable methodologies are needed to guide the investigation of context. Case study is one appropriate methodology, but there is little guidance about what case study design can offer the study of context in trials. We address this gap in the literature by presenting a number of important considerations for process evaluation using a case study design.

In this paper, we define context, the relationship between complex interventions and context, and describe case study design methodology. A well-designed process evaluation using case study should consider the following core components: the purpose; definition of the intervention; the trial design, the case, the theories or logic models underpinning the intervention, the sampling approach and the conceptual or theoretical framework. We describe each of these in detail and highlight with examples from recently published process evaluations.

Conclusions

There are a number of approaches to process evaluation design in the literature; however, there is a paucity of research on what case study design can offer process evaluations. We argue that case study is one of the best research designs to underpin process evaluations, to capture the dynamic and complex relationship between intervention and context during implementation. We provide a comprehensive overview of the issues for process evaluation design to consider when using a case study design.

Trial registration

DQIP - ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01425502 - OPAL - ISRCTN57746448

Peer Review reports

Contribution to the literature

We illustrate how case study methodology can explore the complex, dynamic and uncertain relationship between context and interventions within trials.

We depict different case study designs and illustrate there is not one formula and that design needs to be tailored to the context and trial design.

Case study can support comparisons between intervention and control arms and between cases within arms to uncover and explain differences in detail.

We argue that case study can illustrate how components have evolved and been redefined through implementation.

Key issues for consideration in case study design within process evaluations are presented and illustrated with examples.

Process evaluations are an important component of an effectiveness evaluation as they focus on understanding the relationship between interventions and context to explain how and why interventions work or fail and whether they can be transferred to other settings and populations. However, historically, not all trials have had a process evaluation component, nor have they sufficiently reported aspects of context, resulting in poor uptake of trial findings [ 1 ]. Considerations of context are often absent from published process evaluations, with few studies acknowledging, taking account of or describing context during implementation, or assessing the impact of context on implementation [ 2 , 3 ]. At present, evidence from trials is not being used in a timely manner [ 4 , 5 ], and this can negatively impact on patient benefit and experience [ 6 ]. It takes on average 17 years for knowledge from research to be implemented into practice [ 7 ]. Suitable methodologies are therefore needed that allow for context to be exposed; one appropriate methodological approach is case study [ 8 , 9 ].

In 2015, the Medical Research Council (MRC) published guidance for process evaluations [ 10 ]. This was a key milestone in legitimising as well as providing tools, methods and a framework for conducting process evaluations. Nevertheless, as with all guidance, there is a need for reflection, challenge and refinement. There have been a number of critiques of the MRC guidance, including that interventions should be considered as events in systems [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 ]; a need for better use, critique and development of theories [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]; and a need for more guidance on integrating qualitative and quantitative data [ 18 , 19 ]. Although the MRC process evaluation guidance does consider appropriate qualitative and quantitative methods, it does not mention case study design and what it can offer the study of context in trials.

The case study methodology is ideally suited to real-world, sustainable intervention development and evaluation because it can explore and examine contemporary complex phenomena, in depth, in numerous contexts and using multiple sources of data [ 8 ]. Case study design can capture the complexity of the case, the relationship between the intervention and the context and how the intervention worked (or not) [ 8 ]. There are a number of textbooks on a case study within the social science fields [ 8 , 9 , 20 ], but there are no case study textbooks and a paucity of useful texts on how to design, conduct and report case study within the health arena. Few examples exist within the trial design and evaluation literature [ 3 , 21 ]. Therefore, guidance to enable well-designed process evaluations using case study methodology is required.

We aim to address the gap in the literature by presenting a number of important considerations for process evaluation using a case study design. First, we define the context and describe the relationship between complex health interventions and context.

What is context?

While there is growing recognition that context interacts with the intervention to impact on the intervention’s effectiveness [ 22 ], context is still poorly defined and conceptualised. There are a number of different definitions in the literature, but as Bate et al. explained ‘almost universally, we find context to be an overworked word in everyday dialogue but a massively understudied and misunderstood concept’ [ 23 ]. Ovretveit defines context as ‘everything the intervention is not’ [ 24 ]. This last definition is used by the MRC framework for process evaluations [ 25 ]; however; the problem with this definition is that it is highly dependent on how the intervention is defined. We have found Pfadenhauer et al.’s definition useful:

Context is conceptualised as a set of characteristics and circumstances that consist of active and unique factors that surround the implementation. As such it is not a backdrop for implementation but interacts, influences, modifies and facilitates or constrains the intervention and its implementation. Context is usually considered in relation to an intervention or object, with which it actively interacts. A boundary between the concepts of context and setting is discernible: setting refers to the physical, specific location in which the intervention is put into practice. Context is much more versatile, embracing not only the setting but also roles, interactions and relationships [ 22 ].

Traditionally, context has been conceptualised in terms of barriers and facilitators, but what is a barrier in one context may be a facilitator in another, so it is the relationship and dynamics between the intervention and context which are the most important [ 26 ]. There is a need for empirical research to really understand how different contextual factors relate to each other and to the intervention. At present, research studies often list common contextual factors, but without a depth of meaning and understanding, such as government or health board policies, organisational structures, professional and patient attitudes, behaviours and beliefs [ 27 ]. The case study methodology is well placed to understand the relationship between context and intervention where these boundaries may not be clearly evident. It offers a means of unpicking the contextual conditions which are pertinent to effective implementation.

The relationship between complex health interventions and context

Health interventions are generally made up of a number of different components and are considered complex due to the influence of context on their implementation and outcomes [ 3 , 28 ]. Complex interventions are often reliant on the engagement of practitioners and patients, so their attitudes, behaviours, beliefs and cultures influence whether and how an intervention is effective or not. Interventions are context-sensitive; they interact with the environment in which they are implemented. In fact, many argue that interventions are a product of their context, and indeed, outcomes are likely to be a product of the intervention and its context [ 3 , 29 ]. Within a trial, there is also the influence of the research context too—so the observed outcome could be due to the intervention alone, elements of the context within which the intervention is being delivered, elements of the research process or a combination of all three. Therefore, it can be difficult and unhelpful to separate the intervention from the context within which it was evaluated because the intervention and context are likely to have evolved together over time. As a result, the same intervention can look and behave differently in different contexts, so it is important this is known, understood and reported [ 3 ]. Finally, the intervention context is dynamic; the people, organisations and systems change over time, [ 3 ] which requires practitioners and patients to respond, and they may do this by adapting the intervention or contextual factors. So, to enable researchers to replicate successful interventions, or to explain why the intervention was not successful, it is not enough to describe the components of the intervention, they need to be described by their relationship to their context and resources [ 3 , 28 ].

What is a case study?

Case study methodology aims to provide an in-depth, holistic, balanced, detailed and complete picture of complex contemporary phenomena in its natural context [ 8 , 9 , 20 ]. In this case, the phenomena are the implementation of complex interventions in a trial. Case study methodology takes the view that the phenomena can be more than the sum of their parts and have to be understood as a whole [ 30 ]. It is differentiated from a clinical case study by its analytical focus [ 20 ].

The methodology is particularly useful when linked to trials because some of the features of the design naturally fill the gaps in knowledge generated by trials. Given the methodological focus on understanding phenomena in the round, case study methodology is typified by the use of multiple sources of data, which are more commonly qualitatively guided [ 31 ]. The case study methodology is not epistemologically specific, like realist evaluation, and can be used with different epistemologies [ 32 ], and with different theories, such as Normalisation Process Theory (which explores how staff work together to implement a new intervention) or the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (which provides a menu of constructs associated with effective implementation) [ 33 , 34 , 35 ]. Realist evaluation can be used to explore the relationship between context, mechanism and outcome, but case study differs from realist evaluation by its focus on a holistic and in-depth understanding of the relationship between an intervention and the contemporary context in which it was implemented [ 36 ]. Case study enables researchers to choose epistemologies and theories which suit the nature of the enquiry and their theoretical preferences.

Designing a process evaluation using case study

An important part of any study is the research design. Due to their varied philosophical positions, the seminal authors in the field of case study have different epistemic views as to how a case study should be conducted [ 8 , 9 ]. Stake takes an interpretative approach (interested in how people make sense of their world), and Yin has more positivistic leanings, arguing for objectivity, validity and generalisability [ 8 , 9 ].

Regardless of the philosophical background, a well-designed process evaluation using case study should consider the following core components: the purpose; the definition of the intervention, the trial design, the case, and the theories or logic models underpinning the intervention; the sampling approach; and the conceptual or theoretical framework [ 8 , 9 , 20 , 31 , 33 ]. We now discuss these critical components in turn, with reference to two process evaluations that used case study design, the DQIP and OPAL studies [ 21 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ].

The purpose of a process evaluation is to evaluate and explain the relationship between the intervention and its components, to context and outcome. It can help inform judgements about validity (by exploring the intervention components and their relationship with one another (construct validity), the connections between intervention and outcomes (internal validity) and the relationship between intervention and context (external validity)). It can also distinguish between implementation failure (where the intervention is poorly delivered) and intervention failure (intervention design is flawed) [ 42 , 43 ]. By using a case study to explicitly understand the relationship between context and the intervention during implementation, the process evaluation can explain the intervention effects and the potential generalisability and optimisation into routine practice [ 44 ].

The DQIP process evaluation aimed to qualitatively explore how patients and GP practices responded to an intervention designed to reduce high-risk prescribing of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or antiplatelet agents (see Table  1 ) and quantitatively examine how change in high-risk prescribing was associated with practice characteristics and implementation processes. The OPAL process evaluation (see Table  2 ) aimed to quantitatively understand the factors which influenced the effectiveness of a pelvic floor muscle training intervention for women with urinary incontinence and qualitatively explore the participants’ experiences of treatment and adherence.

Defining the intervention and exploring the theories or assumptions underpinning the intervention design

Process evaluations should also explore the utility of the theories or assumptions underpinning intervention design [ 49 ]. Not all theories underpinning interventions are based on a formal theory, but they based on assumptions as to how the intervention is expected to work. These can be depicted as a logic model or theory of change [ 25 ]. To capture how the intervention and context evolve requires the intervention and its expected mechanisms to be clearly defined at the outset [ 50 ]. Hawe and colleagues recommend defining interventions by function (what processes make the intervention work) rather than form (what is delivered) [ 51 ]. However, in some cases, it may be useful to know if some of the components are redundant in certain contexts or if there is a synergistic effect between all the intervention components.

The DQIP trial delivered two interventions, one intervention was delivered to professionals with high fidelity and then professionals delivered the other intervention to patients by form rather than function allowing adaptations to the local context as appropriate. The assumptions underpinning intervention delivery were prespecified in a logic model published in the process evaluation protocol [ 52 ].

Case study is well placed to challenge or reinforce the theoretical assumptions or redefine these based on the relationship between the intervention and context. Yin advocates the use of theoretical propositions; these direct attention to specific aspects of the study for investigation [ 8 ] can be based on the underlying assumptions and tested during the course of the process evaluation. In case studies, using an epistemic position more aligned with Yin can enable research questions to be designed, which seek to expose patterns of unanticipated as well as expected relationships [ 9 ]. The OPAL trial was more closely aligned with Yin, where the research team predefined some of their theoretical assumptions, based on how the intervention was expected to work. The relevant parts of the data analysis then drew on data to support or refute the theoretical propositions. This was particularly useful for the trial as the prespecified theoretical propositions linked to the mechanisms of action on which the intervention was anticipated to have an effect (or not).

Tailoring to the trial design

Process evaluations need to be tailored to the trial, the intervention and the outcomes being measured [ 45 ]. For example, in a stepped wedge design (where the intervention is delivered in a phased manner), researchers should try to ensure process data are captured at relevant time points or in a two-arm or multiple arm trial, ensure data is collected from the control group(s) as well as the intervention group(s). In the DQIP trial, a stepped wedge trial, at least one process evaluation case, was sampled per cohort. Trials often continue to measure outcomes after delivery of the intervention has ceased, so researchers should also consider capturing ‘follow-up’ data on contextual factors, which may continue to influence the outcome measure. The OPAL trial had two active treatment arms so collected process data from both arms. In addition, as the trial was interested in long-term adherence, the trial and the process evaluation collected data from participants for 2 years after the intervention was initially delivered, providing 24 months follow-up data, in line with the primary outcome for the trial.

Defining the case

Case studies can include single or multiple cases in their design. Single case studies usually sample typical or unique cases, their advantage being the depth and richness that can be achieved over a long period of time. The advantages of multiple case study design are that cases can be compared to generate a greater depth of analysis. Multiple case study sampling may be carried out in order to test for replication or contradiction [ 8 ]. Given that trials are often conducted over a number of sites, a multiple case study design is more sensible for process evaluations, as there is likely to be variation in implementation between sites. Case definition may occur at a variety of levels but is most appropriate if it reflects the trial design. For example, a case in an individual patient level trial is likely to be defined as a person/patient (e.g. a woman with urinary incontinence—OPAL trial) whereas in a cluster trial, a case is like to be a cluster, such as an organisation (e.g. a general practice—DQIP trial). Of course, the process evaluation could explore cases with less distinct boundaries, such as communities or relationships; however, the clarity with which these cases are defined is important, in order to scope the nature of the data that will be generated.

Carefully sampled cases are critical to a good case study as sampling helps inform the quality of the inferences that can be made from the data [ 53 ]. In both qualitative and quantitative research, how and how many participants to sample must be decided when planning the study. Quantitative sampling techniques generally aim to achieve a random sample. Qualitative research generally uses purposive samples to achieve data saturation, occurring when the incoming data produces little or no new information to address the research questions. The term data saturation has evolved from theoretical saturation in conventional grounded theory studies; however, its relevance to other types of studies is contentious as the term saturation seems to be widely used but poorly justified [ 54 ]. Empirical evidence suggests that for in-depth interview studies, saturation occurs at 12 interviews for thematic saturation, but typically more would be needed for a heterogenous sample higher degrees of saturation [ 55 , 56 ]. Both DQIP and OPAL case studies were huge with OPAL designed to interview each of the 40 individual cases four times and DQIP designed to interview the lead DQIP general practitioner (GP) twice (to capture change over time), another GP and the practice manager from each of the 10 organisational cases. Despite the plethora of mixed methods research textbooks, there is very little about sampling as discussions typically link to method (e.g. interviews) rather than paradigm (e.g. case study).

Purposive sampling can improve the generalisability of the process evaluation by sampling for greater contextual diversity. The typical or average case is often not the richest source of information. Outliers can often reveal more important insights, because they may reflect the implementation of the intervention using different processes. Cases can be selected from a number of criteria, which are not mutually exclusive, to enable a rich and detailed picture to be built across sites [ 53 ]. To avoid the Hawthorne effect, it is recommended that process evaluations sample from both intervention and control sites, which enables comparison and explanation. There is always a trade-off between breadth and depth in sampling, so it is important to note that often quantity does not mean quality and that carefully sampled cases can provide powerful illustrative examples of how the intervention worked in practice, the relationship between the intervention and context and how and why they evolved together. The qualitative components of both DQIP and OPAL process evaluations aimed for maximum variation sampling. Please see Table  1 for further information on how DQIP’s sampling frame was important for providing contextual information on processes influencing effective implementation of the intervention.

Conceptual and theoretical framework

A conceptual or theoretical framework helps to frame data collection and analysis [ 57 ]. Theories can also underpin propositions, which can be tested in the process evaluation. Process evaluations produce intervention-dependent knowledge, and theories help make the research findings more generalizable by providing a common language [ 16 ]. There are a number of mid-range theories which have been designed to be used with process evaluation [ 34 , 35 , 58 ]. The choice of the appropriate conceptual or theoretical framework is, however, dependent on the philosophical and professional background of the research. The two examples within this paper used our own framework for the design of process evaluations, which proposes a number of candidate processes which can be explored, for example, recruitment, delivery, response, maintenance and context [ 45 ]. This framework was published before the MRC guidance on process evaluations, and both the DQIP and OPAL process evaluations were designed before the MRC guidance was published. The DQIP process evaluation explored all candidates in the framework whereas the OPAL process evaluation selected four candidates, illustrating that process evaluations can be selective in what they explore based on the purpose, research questions and resources. Furthermore, as Kislov and colleagues argue, we also have a responsibility to critique the theoretical framework underpinning the evaluation and refine theories to advance knowledge [ 59 ].

Data collection

An important consideration is what data to collect or measure and when. Case study methodology supports a range of data collection methods, both qualitative and quantitative, to best answer the research questions. As the aim of the case study is to gain an in-depth understanding of phenomena in context, methods are more commonly qualitative or mixed method in nature. Qualitative methods such as interviews, focus groups and observation offer rich descriptions of the setting, delivery of the intervention in each site and arm, how the intervention was perceived by the professionals delivering the intervention and the patients receiving the intervention. Quantitative methods can measure recruitment, fidelity and dose and establish which characteristics are associated with adoption, delivery and effectiveness. To ensure an understanding of the complexity of the relationship between the intervention and context, the case study should rely on multiple sources of data and triangulate these to confirm and corroborate the findings [ 8 ]. Process evaluations might consider using routine data collected in the trial across all sites and additional qualitative data across carefully sampled sites for a more nuanced picture within reasonable resource constraints. Mixed methods allow researchers to ask more complex questions and collect richer data than can be collected by one method alone [ 60 ]. The use of multiple sources of data allows data triangulation, which increases a study’s internal validity but also provides a more in-depth and holistic depiction of the case [ 20 ]. For example, in the DQIP process evaluation, the quantitative component used routinely collected data from all sites participating in the trial and purposively sampled cases for a more in-depth qualitative exploration [ 21 , 38 , 39 ].

The timing of data collection is crucial to study design, especially within a process evaluation where data collection can potentially influence the trial outcome. Process evaluations are generally in parallel or retrospective to the trial. The advantage of a retrospective design is that the evaluation itself is less likely to influence the trial outcome. However, the disadvantages include recall bias, lack of sensitivity to nuances and an inability to iteratively explore the relationship between intervention and outcome as it develops. To capture the dynamic relationship between intervention and context, the process evaluation needs to be parallel and longitudinal to the trial. Longitudinal methodological design is rare, but it is needed to capture the dynamic nature of implementation [ 40 ]. How the intervention is delivered is likely to change over time as it interacts with context. For example, as professionals deliver the intervention, they become more familiar with it, and it becomes more embedded into systems. The OPAL process evaluation was a longitudinal, mixed methods process evaluation where the quantitative component had been predefined and built into trial data collection systems. Data collection in both the qualitative and quantitative components mirrored the trial data collection points, which were longitudinal to capture adherence and contextual changes over time.

There is a lot of attention in the recent literature towards a systems approach to understanding interventions in context, which suggests interventions are ‘events within systems’ [ 61 , 62 ]. This framing highlights the dynamic nature of context, suggesting that interventions are an attempt to change systems dynamics. This conceptualisation would suggest that the study design should collect contextual data before and after implementation to assess the effect of the intervention on the context and vice versa.

Data analysis

Designing a rigorous analysis plan is particularly important for multiple case studies, where researchers must decide whether their approach to analysis is case or variable based. Case-based analysis is the most common, and analytic strategies must be clearly articulated for within and across case analysis. A multiple case study design can consist of multiple cases, where each case is analysed at the case level, or of multiple embedded cases, where data from all the cases are pulled together for analysis at some level. For example, OPAL analysis was at the case level, but all the cases for the intervention and control arms were pulled together at the arm level for more in-depth analysis and comparison. For Yin, analytical strategies rely on theoretical propositions, but for Stake, analysis works from the data to develop theory. In OPAL and DQIP, case summaries were written to summarise the cases and detail within-case analysis. Each of the studies structured these differently based on the phenomena of interest and the analytic technique. DQIP applied an approach more akin to Stake [ 9 ], with the cases summarised around inductive themes whereas OPAL applied a Yin [ 8 ] type approach using theoretical propositions around which the case summaries were structured. As the data for each case had been collected through longitudinal interviews, the case summaries were able to capture changes over time. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss different analytic techniques; however, to ensure the holistic examination of the intervention(s) in context, it is important to clearly articulate and demonstrate how data is integrated and synthesised [ 31 ].

There are a number of approaches to process evaluation design in the literature; however, there is a paucity of research on what case study design can offer process evaluations. We argue that case study is one of the best research designs to underpin process evaluations, to capture the dynamic and complex relationship between intervention and context during implementation [ 38 ]. Case study can enable comparisons within and across intervention and control arms and enable the evolving relationship between intervention and context to be captured holistically rather than considering processes in isolation. Utilising a longitudinal design can enable the dynamic relationship between context and intervention to be captured in real time. This information is fundamental to holistically explaining what intervention was implemented, understanding how and why the intervention worked or not and informing the transferability of the intervention into routine clinical practice.

Case study designs are not prescriptive, but process evaluations using case study should consider the purpose, trial design, the theories or assumptions underpinning the intervention, and the conceptual and theoretical frameworks informing the evaluation. We have discussed each of these considerations in turn, providing a comprehensive overview of issues for process evaluations using a case study design. There is no single or best way to conduct a process evaluation or a case study, but researchers need to make informed choices about the process evaluation design. Although this paper focuses on process evaluations, we recognise that case study design could also be useful during intervention development and feasibility trials. Elements of this paper are also applicable to other study designs involving trials.

Availability of data and materials

No data and materials were used.

Abbreviations

Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care

Medical Research Council

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs

Optimizing Pelvic Floor Muscle Exercises to Achieve Long-term benefits

Blencowe NB. Systematic review of intervention design and delivery in pragmatic and explanatory surgical randomized clinical trials. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1037–47.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Dixon-Woods M. The problem of context in quality improvement. In: Foundation TH, editor. Perspectives on context: The Health Foundation; 2014.

Wells M, Williams B, Treweek S, Coyle J, Taylor J. Intervention description is not enough: evidence from an in-depth multiple case study on the untold role and impact of context in randomised controlled trials of seven complex interventions. Trials. 2012;13(1):95.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Grant A, Sullivan F, Dowell J. An ethnographic exploration of influences on prescribing in general practice: why is there variation in prescribing practices? Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):72.

Lang ES, Wyer PC, Haynes RB. Knowledge translation: closing the evidence-to-practice gap. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(3):355–63.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ward V, House AF, Hamer S. Developing a framework for transferring knowledge into action: a thematic analysis of the literature. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14(3):156–64.

Morris ZS, Wooding S, Grant J. The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research. J R Soc Med. 2011;104(12):510–20.

Yin R. Case study research and applications: design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Inc; 2018.

Google Scholar  

Stake R. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Ltd; 1995.

Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, Moore L, O’Cathain A, Tinati T, Wight D, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. Br Med J. 2015;350.

Hawe P. Minimal, negligible and negligent interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2015;138:265–8.

Moore GF, Evans RE, Hawkins J, Littlecott H, Melendez-Torres GJ, Bonell C, Murphy S. From complex social interventions to interventions in complex social systems: future directions and unresolved questions for intervention development and evaluation. Evaluation. 2018;25(1):23–45.

Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):95.

Rutter H, Savona N, Glonti K, Bibby J, Cummins S, Finegood DT, Greaves F, Harper L, Hawe P, Moore L, et al. The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. Lancet. 2017;390(10112):2602–4.

Moore G, Cambon L, Michie S, Arwidson P, Ninot G, Ferron C, Potvin L, Kellou N, Charlesworth J, Alla F, et al. Population health intervention research: the place of theories. Trials. 2019;20(1):285.

Kislov R. Engaging with theory: from theoretically informed to theoretically informative improvement research. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28(3):177–9.

Boulton R, Sandall J, Sevdalis N. The cultural politics of ‘Implementation Science’. J Med Human. 2020;41(3):379-94. h https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-020-09607-9 .

Cheng KKF, Metcalfe A. Qualitative methods and process evaluation in clinical trials context: where to head to? Int J Qual Methods. 2018;17(1):1609406918774212.

Article   Google Scholar  

Richards DA, Bazeley P, Borglin G, Craig P, Emsley R, Frost J, Hill J, Horwood J, Hutchings HA, Jinks C, et al. Integrating quantitative and qualitative data and findings when undertaking randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open. 2019;9(11):e032081.

Thomas G. How to do your case study, 2nd edition edn. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2016.

Grant A, Dreischulte T, Guthrie B. Process evaluation of the Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care (DQIP) trial: case study evaluation of adoption and maintenance of a complex intervention to reduce high-risk primary care prescribing. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3).

Pfadenhauer L, Rohwer A, Burns J, Booth A, Lysdahl KB, Hofmann B, Gerhardus A, Mozygemba K, Tummers M, Wahlster P, et al. Guidance for the assessment of context and implementation in health technology assessments (HTA) and systematic reviews of complex interventions: the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions (CICI) framework: Integrate-HTA; 2016.

Bate P, Robert G, Fulop N, Ovretveit J, Dixon-Woods M. Perspectives on context. London: The Health Foundation; 2014.

Ovretveit J. Understanding the conditions for improvement: research to discover which context influences affect improvement success. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20.

Medical Research Council: Process evaluation of complex interventions: UK Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance. 2015.

May CR, Johnson M, Finch T. Implementation, context and complexity. Implement Sci. 2016;11(1):141.

Bate P. Context is everything. In: Perpesctives on Context. The Health Foundation 2014.

Horton TJ, Illingworth JH, Warburton WHP. Overcoming challenges in codifying and replicating complex health care interventions. Health Aff. 2018;37(2):191–7.

O'Connor AM, Tugwell P, Wells GA, Elmslie T, Jolly E, Hollingworth G, McPherson R, Bunn H, Graham I, Drake E. A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: decision support framework and evaluation. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;33:267–79.

Creswell J, Poth C. Qualiative inquiry and research design, fourth edition edn. Thousan Oaks, California: Sage Publications; 2018.

Carolan CM, Forbat L, Smith A. Developing the DESCARTE model: the design of case study research in health care. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(5):626–39.

Takahashi ARW, Araujo L. Case study research: opening up research opportunities. RAUSP Manage J. 2020;55(1):100–11.

Tight M. Understanding case study research, small-scale research with meaning. London: Sage Publications; 2017.

May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalisation process theory. Sociology. 2009;43:535.

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice. A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4.

Pawson R, Tilley N. Realist evaluation. London: Sage; 1997.

Dreischulte T, Donnan P, Grant A, Hapca A, McCowan C, Guthrie B. Safer prescribing - a trial of education, informatics & financial incentives. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1053–64.

Grant A, Dreischulte T, Guthrie B. Process evaluation of the Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care (DQIP) trial: active and less active ingredients of a multi-component complex intervention to reduce high-risk primary care prescribing. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):4.

Dreischulte T, Grant A, Hapca A, Guthrie B. Process evaluation of the Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care (DQIP) trial: quantitative examination of variation between practices in recruitment, implementation and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2018;8(1):e017133.

Grant A, Dean S, Hay-Smith J, Hagen S, McClurg D, Taylor A, Kovandzic M, Bugge C. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial of basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence: protocol for the OPAL (Optimising Pelvic Floor Exercises to Achieve Long-term benefits) trial mixed methods longitudinal qualitative case study and process evaluation. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e024152.

Hagen S, McClurg D, Bugge C, Hay-Smith J, Dean SG, Elders A, Glazener C, Abdel-fattah M, Agur WI, Booth J, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of basic versus biofeedback-mediated intensive pelvic floor muscle training for female stress or mixed urinary incontinence: protocol for the OPAL randomised trial. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e024153.

Steckler A, Linnan L. Process evaluation for public health interventions and research; 2002.

Durlak JA. Why programme implementation is so important. J Prev Intervent Commun. 1998;17(2):5–18.

Bonell C, Oakley A, Hargreaves J, VS, Rees R. Assessment of generalisability in trials of health interventions: suggested framework and systematic review. Br Med J. 2006;333(7563):346–9.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Grant A, Treweek S, Dreischulte T, Foy R, Guthrie B. Process evaluations for cluster-randomised trials of complex interventions: a proposed framework for design and reporting. Trials. 2013;14(1):15.

Yin R. Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage Publications; 2003.

Bugge C, Hay-Smith J, Grant A, Taylor A, Hagen S, McClurg D, Dean S: A 24 month longitudinal qualitative study of women’s experience of electromyography biofeedback pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) and PFMT alone for urinary incontinence: adherence, outcome and context. ICS Gothenburg 2019 2019. https://www.ics.org/2019/abstract/473 . Access 10.9.2020.

Suzanne Hagen, Andrew Elders, Susan Stratton, Nicole Sergenson, Carol Bugge, Sarah Dean, Jean Hay-Smith, Mary Kilonzo, Maria Dimitrova, Mohamed Abdel-Fattah, Wael Agur, Jo Booth, Cathryn Glazener, Karen Guerrero, Alison McDonald, John Norrie, Louise R Williams, Doreen McClurg. Effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training with and without electromyographic biofeedback for urinary incontinence in women: multicentre randomised controlled trial BMJ 2020;371. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3719 .

Cook TD. Emergent principles for the design, implementation, and analysis of cluster-based experiments in social science. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2005;599(1):176–98.

Hoffmann T, Glasziou P, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. Br Med J. 2014;348.

Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: how “out of control” can a randomised controlled trial be? Br Med J. 2004;328(7455):1561–3.

Grant A, Dreischulte T, Treweek S, Guthrie B. Study protocol of a mixed-methods evaluation of a cluster randomised trial to improve the safety of NSAID and antiplatelet prescribing: Data-driven Quality Improvement in Primary Care. Trials. 2012;13:154.

Flyvbjerg B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq. 2006;12(2):219–45.

Thorne S. The great saturation debate: what the “S word” means and doesn’t mean in qualitative research reporting. Can J Nurs Res. 2020;52(1):3–5.

Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough?: an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18(1):59–82.

Guest G, Namey E, Chen M. A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0232076.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Davidoff F, Dixon-Woods M, Leviton L, Michie S. Demystifying theory and its use in improvement. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(3):228–38.

Rycroft-Malone J. The PARIHS framework: a framework for guiding the implementation of evidence-based practice. J Nurs Care Qual. 2004;4:297-304.

Kislov R, Pope C, Martin GP, Wilson PM. Harnessing the power of theorising in implementation science. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):103.

Cresswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd; 2007.

Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Theorising interventions as events in systems. Am J Community Psychol. 2009;43:267–76.

Craig P, Ruggiero E, Frohlich KL, Mykhalovskiy E, White M. Taking account of context in population health intervention research: guidance for producers, users and funders of research: National Institute for Health Research; 2018. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK498645/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK498645.pdf .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor Shaun Treweek for the discussions about context in trials.

No funding was received for this work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedic Practice, Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Road, Aberdeen, AB10 7QB, UK

Aileen Grant

Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Pathfoot Building, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK

Carol Bugge

Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Charing Cross Campus, London, W6 8RP, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AG, CB and MW conceptualised the study. AG wrote the paper. CB and MW commented on the drafts. All authors have approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aileen Grant .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethics approval and consent to participate is not appropriate as no participants were included.

Consent for publication

Consent for publication is not required as no participants were included.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Grant, A., Bugge, C. & Wells, M. Designing process evaluations using case study to explore the context of complex interventions evaluated in trials. Trials 21 , 982 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04880-4

Download citation

Received : 09 April 2020

Accepted : 06 November 2020

Published : 27 November 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-020-04880-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Process evaluation
• Case study design

ISSN: 1745-6215

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Case Study Evaluation Approach
• Learning Center

A case study evaluation approach can be an incredibly powerful tool for monitoring and evaluating complex programs and policies. By identifying common themes and patterns, this approach allows us to better understand the successes and challenges faced by the program. In this article, we’ll explore the benefits of using a case study evaluation approach in the monitoring and evaluation of projects, programs, and public policies.

Table of Contents

Introduction to Case Study Evaluation Approach

The advantages of a case study evaluation approach, types of case studies, potential challenges with a case study evaluation approach, guiding principles for successful implementation of a case study evaluation approach.

• Benefits of Incorporating the Case Study Evaluation Approach in the Monitoring and Evaluation of Projects and Programs

A case study evaluation approach is a great way to gain an in-depth understanding of a particular issue or situation. This type of approach allows the researcher to observe, analyze, and assess the effects of a particular situation on individuals or groups.

An individual, a location, or a project may serve as the focal point of a case study’s attention. Quantitative and qualitative data are frequently used in conjunction with one another.

It also allows the researcher to gain insights into how people react to external influences. By using a case study evaluation approach, researchers can gain insights into how certain factors such as policy change or a new technology have impacted individuals and communities. The data gathered through this approach can be used to formulate effective strategies for responding to changes and challenges. Ultimately, this monitoring and evaluation approach helps organizations make better decision about the implementation of their plans.

This approach can be used to assess the effectiveness of a policy, program, or initiative by considering specific elements such as implementation processes, outcomes, and impact. A case study evaluation approach can provide an in-depth understanding of the effectiveness of a program by closely examining the processes involved in its implementation. This includes understanding the context, stakeholders, and resources to gain insight into how well a program is functioning or has been executed. By evaluating these elements, it can help to identify areas for improvement and suggest potential solutions. The findings from this approach can then be used to inform decisions about policies, programs, and initiatives for improved outcomes.

It is also useful for determining if other policies, programs, or initiatives could be applied to similar situations in order to achieve similar results or improved outcomes. All in all, the case study monitoring evaluation approach is an effective method for determining the effectiveness of specific policies, programs, or initiatives. By researching and analyzing the successes of previous cases, this approach can be used to identify similar approaches that could be applied to similar situations in order to achieve similar results or improved outcomes.

A case study evaluation approach offers the advantage of providing in-depth insight into a particular program or policy. This can be accomplished by analyzing data and observations collected from a range of stakeholders such as program participants, service providers, and community members. The monitoring and evaluation approach is used to assess the impact of programs and inform the decision-making process to ensure successful implementation. The case study monitoring and evaluation approach can help identify any underlying issues that need to be addressed in order to improve program effectiveness. It also provides a reality check on how successful programs are actually working, allowing organizations to make adjustments as needed. Overall, a case study monitoring and evaluation approach helps to ensure that policies and programs are achieving their objectives while providing valuable insight into how they are performing overall.

By taking a qualitative approach to data collection and analysis, case study evaluations are able to capture nuances in the context of a particular program or policy that can be overlooked when relying solely on quantitative methods. Using this approach, insights can be gleaned from looking at the individual experiences and perspectives of actors involved, providing a more detailed understanding of the impact of the program or policy than is possible with other evaluation methodologies. As such, case study monitoring evaluation is an invaluable tool in assessing the effectiveness of a particular initiative, enabling more informed decision-making as well as more effective implementation of programs and policies.

Furthermore, this approach is an effective way to uncover experiential information that can help to inform the ongoing improvement of policy and programming over time All in all, the case study monitoring evaluation approach offers an effective way to uncover experiential information necessary to inform the ongoing improvement of policy and programming. By analyzing the data gathered from this systematic approach, stakeholders can gain deeper insight into how best to make meaningful and long-term changes in their respective organizations.

Case studies come in a variety of forms, each of which can be put to a unique set of evaluation tasks. Evaluators have come to a consensus on describing six distinct sorts of case studies, which are as follows: illustrative, exploratory, critical instance, program implementation, program effects, and cumulative.

Illustrative Case Study

An illustrative case study is a type of case study that is used to provide a detailed and descriptive account of a particular event, situation, or phenomenon. It is often used in research to provide a clear understanding of a complex issue, and to illustrate the practical application of theories or concepts.

An illustrative case study typically uses qualitative data, such as interviews, surveys, or observations, to provide a detailed account of the unit being studied. The case study may also include quantitative data, such as statistics or numerical measurements, to provide additional context or to support the qualitative data.

The goal of an illustrative case study is to provide a rich and detailed description of the unit being studied, and to use this information to illustrate broader themes or concepts. For example, an illustrative case study of a successful community development project may be used to illustrate the importance of community engagement and collaboration in achieving development goals.

One of the strengths of an illustrative case study is its ability to provide a detailed and nuanced understanding of a particular issue or phenomenon. By focusing on a single case, the researcher is able to provide a detailed and in-depth analysis that may not be possible through other research methods.

However, one limitation of an illustrative case study is that the findings may not be generalizable to other contexts or populations. Because the case study focuses on a single unit, it may not be representative of other similar units or situations.

A well-executed case study can shed light on wider research topics or concepts through its thorough and descriptive analysis of a specific event or phenomenon.

Exploratory Case Study

An exploratory case study is a type of case study that is used to investigate a new or previously unexplored phenomenon or issue. It is often used in research when the topic is relatively unknown or when there is little existing literature on the topic.

Exploratory case studies are typically qualitative in nature and use a variety of methods to collect data, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis. The focus of the study is to gather as much information as possible about the phenomenon being studied and to identify new and emerging themes or patterns.

The goal of an exploratory case study is to provide a foundation for further research and to generate hypotheses about the phenomenon being studied. By exploring the topic in-depth, the researcher can identify new areas of research and generate new questions to guide future research.

One of the strengths of an exploratory case study is its ability to provide a rich and detailed understanding of a new or emerging phenomenon. By using a variety of data collection methods, the researcher can gather a broad range of data and perspectives to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon being studied.

However, one limitation of an exploratory case study is that the findings may not be generalizable to other contexts or populations. Because the study is focused on a new or previously unexplored phenomenon, the findings may not be applicable to other situations or populations.

Exploratory case studies are an effective research strategy for learning about novel occurrences, developing research hypotheses, and gaining a deep familiarity with a topic of study.

Critical Instance Case Study

A critical instance case study is a type of case study that focuses on a specific event or situation that is critical to understanding a broader issue or phenomenon. The goal of a critical instance case study is to analyze the event in depth and to draw conclusions about the broader issue or phenomenon based on the analysis.

A critical instance case study typically uses qualitative data, such as interviews, observations, or document analysis, to provide a detailed and nuanced understanding of the event being studied. The data are analyzed using various methods, such as content analysis or thematic analysis, to identify patterns and themes that emerge from the data.

The critical instance case study is often used in research when a particular event or situation is critical to understanding a broader issue or phenomenon. For example, a critical instance case study of a successful disaster response effort may be used to identify key factors that contributed to the success of the response, and to draw conclusions about effective disaster response strategies more broadly.

One of the strengths of a critical instance case study is its ability to provide a detailed and in-depth analysis of a particular event or situation. By focusing on a critical instance, the researcher is able to provide a rich and nuanced understanding of the event, and to draw conclusions about broader issues or phenomena based on the analysis.

However, one limitation of a critical instance case study is that the findings may not be generalizable to other contexts or populations. Because the case study focuses on a specific event or situation, the findings may not be applicable to other similar events or situations.

A critical instance case study is a valuable research method that can provide a detailed and nuanced understanding of a particular event or situation and can be used to draw conclusions about broader issues or phenomena based on the analysis.

Program Implementation Program Implementation

A program implementation case study is a type of case study that focuses on the implementation of a particular program or intervention. The goal of the case study is to provide a detailed and comprehensive account of the program implementation process, and to identify factors that contributed to the success or failure of the program.

Program implementation case studies typically use qualitative data, such as interviews, observations, and document analysis, to provide a detailed and nuanced understanding of the program implementation process. The data are analyzed using various methods, such as content analysis or thematic analysis, to identify patterns and themes that emerge from the data.

The program implementation case study is often used in research to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular program or intervention, and to identify strategies for improving program implementation in the future. For example, a program implementation case study of a school-based health program may be used to identify key factors that contributed to the success or failure of the program, and to make recommendations for improving program implementation in similar settings.

One of the strengths of a program implementation case study is its ability to provide a detailed and comprehensive account of the program implementation process. By using qualitative data, the researcher is able to capture the complexity and nuance of the implementation process, and to identify factors that may not be captured by quantitative data alone.

However, one limitation of a program implementation case study is that the findings may not be generalizable to other contexts or populations. Because the case study focuses on a specific program or intervention, the findings may not be applicable to other programs or interventions in different settings.

An effective research tool, a case study of program implementation may illuminate the intricacies of the implementation process and point the way towards future enhancements.

Program Effects Case Study

A program effects case study is a research method that evaluates the effectiveness of a particular program or intervention by examining its outcomes or effects. The purpose of this type of case study is to provide a detailed and comprehensive account of the program’s impact on its intended participants or target population.

A program effects case study typically employs both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods, such as surveys, interviews, and observations, to evaluate the program’s impact on the target population. The data is then analyzed using statistical and thematic analysis to identify patterns and themes that emerge from the data.

The program effects case study is often used to evaluate the success of a program and identify areas for improvement. For example, a program effects case study of a community-based HIV prevention program may evaluate the program’s effectiveness in reducing HIV transmission rates among high-risk populations and identify factors that contributed to the program’s success.

One of the strengths of a program effects case study is its ability to provide a detailed and nuanced understanding of a program’s impact on its intended participants or target population. By using both quantitative and qualitative data, the researcher can capture both the objective and subjective outcomes of the program and identify factors that may have contributed to the outcomes.

However, a limitation of the program effects case study is that it may not be generalizable to other populations or contexts. Since the case study focuses on a particular program and population, the findings may not be applicable to other programs or populations in different settings.

A program effects case study is a good way to do research because it can give a detailed look at how a program affects the people it is meant for. This kind of case study can be used to figure out what needs to be changed and how to make programs that work better.

Cumulative Case Study

A cumulative case study is a type of case study that involves the collection and analysis of multiple cases to draw broader conclusions. Unlike a single-case study, which focuses on one specific case, a cumulative case study combines multiple cases to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon.

The purpose of a cumulative case study is to build up a body of evidence through the examination of multiple cases. The cases are typically selected to represent a range of variations or perspectives on the phenomenon of interest. Data is collected from each case using a range of methods, such as interviews, surveys, and observations.

The data is then analyzed across cases to identify common themes, patterns, and trends. The analysis may involve both qualitative and quantitative methods, such as thematic analysis and statistical analysis.

The cumulative case study is often used in research to develop and test theories about a phenomenon. For example, a cumulative case study of successful community-based health programs may be used to identify common factors that contribute to program success, and to develop a theory about effective community-based health program design.

One of the strengths of the cumulative case study is its ability to draw on a range of cases to build a more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon. By examining multiple cases, the researcher can identify patterns and trends that may not be evident in a single case study. This allows for a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon and helps to develop more robust theories.

However, one limitation of the cumulative case study is that it can be time-consuming and resource-intensive to collect and analyze data from multiple cases. Additionally, the selection of cases may introduce bias if the cases are not representative of the population of interest.

In summary, a cumulative case study is a valuable research method that can provide a more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon by examining multiple cases. This type of case study is particularly useful for developing and testing theories and identifying common themes and patterns across cases.

When conducting a case study evaluation approach, one of the main challenges is the need to establish a contextually relevant research design that accounts for the unique factors of the case being studied. This requires close monitoring of the case, its environment, and relevant stakeholders. In addition, the researcher must build a framework for the collection and analysis of data that is able to draw meaningful conclusions and provide valid insights into the dynamics of the case. Ultimately, an effective case study monitoring evaluation approach will allow researchers to form an accurate understanding of their research subject.

Additionally, depending on the size and scope of the case, there may be concerns regarding the availability of resources and personnel that could be allocated to data collection and analysis. To address these issues, a case study monitoring evaluation approach can be adopted, which would involve a mix of different methods such as interviews, surveys, focus groups and document reviews. Such an approach could provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and implementation of the case in question. Additionally, this type of evaluation can be tailored to the specific needs of the case study to ensure that all relevant data is collected and respected.

When dealing with a highly sensitive or confidential subject matter within a case study, researchers must take extra measures to prevent bias during data collection as well as protect participant anonymity while also collecting valid data in order to ensure reliable results

Moreover, when conducting a case study evaluation it is important to consider the potential implications of the data gathered. By taking extra measures to prevent bias and protect participant anonymity, researchers can ensure reliable results while also collecting valid data. Maintaining confidentiality and deploying ethical research practices are essential when conducting a case study to ensure an unbiased and accurate monitoring evaluation.

When planning and implementing a case study evaluation approach, it is important to ensure the guiding principles of research quality, data collection, and analysis are met. To ensure these principles are upheld, it is essential to develop a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan. This plan should clearly outline the steps to be taken during the data collection and analysis process. Furthermore, the plan should provide detailed descriptions of the project objectives, target population, key indicators, and timeline. It is also important to include metrics or benchmarks to monitor progress and identify any potential areas for improvement. By implementing such an approach, it will be possible to ensure that the case study evaluation approach yields valid and reliable results.

To ensure successful implementation, it is essential to establish a reliable data collection process that includes detailed information such as the scope of the study, the participants involved, and the methods used to collect data. Additionally, it is important to have a clear understanding of what will be examined through the evaluation process and how the results will be used. All in all, it is essential to establish a sound monitoring evaluation approach for a successful case study implementation. This includes creating a reliable data collection process that encompasses the scope of the study, the participants involved, and the methods used to collect data. It is also imperative to have an understanding of what will be examined and how the results will be utilized. Ultimately, effective planning is key to ensure that the evaluation process yields meaningful insights.

Benefits of Incorporating the Case Study Evaluation Approach in the Monitoring and Evaluation of Projects and Programmes

Using a case study approach in monitoring and evaluation allows for a more detailed and in-depth exploration of the project’s success, helping to identify key areas of improvement and successes that may have been overlooked through traditional evaluation. Through this case study method, specific data can be collected and analyzed to identify trends and different perspectives that can support the evaluation process. This data can allow stakeholders to gain a better understanding of the project’s successes and failures, helping them make informed decisions on how to strengthen current activities or shape future initiatives. From a monitoring and evaluation standpoint, this approach can provide an increased level of accuracy in terms of accurately assessing the effectiveness of the project.

This can provide valuable insights into what works—and what doesn’t—when it comes to implementing projects and programs, aiding decision-makers in making future plans that better meet their objectives However, monitoring and evaluation is just one approach to assessing the success of a case study. It does provide a useful insight into what initiatives may be successful, but it is important to note that there are other effective research methods, such as surveys and interviews, that can also help to further evaluate the success of a project or program.

In conclusion, a case study evaluation approach can be incredibly useful in monitoring and evaluating complex programs and policies. By exploring key themes, patterns and relationships, organizations can gain a detailed understanding of the successes, challenges and limitations of their program or policy. This understanding can then be used to inform decision-making and improve outcomes for those involved. With its ability to provide an in-depth understanding of a program or policy, the case study evaluation approach has become an invaluable tool for monitoring and evaluation professionals.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Login with your Social Account

How strong is my resume.

Only 2% of resumes land interviews.

Land a better, higher-paying career

Jobs for You

Business development associate.

• United States

Director of Finance and Administration

• Bosnia and Herzegovina

Request for Information – Collecting Information on Potential Partners for Local Works Evaluation

• Washington, USA

Principal Field Monitors

Technical expert (health, wash, nutrition, education, child protection, hiv/aids, supplies), survey expert, data analyst, team leader, usaid-bha performance evaluation consultant.

• International Rescue Committee

Manager II, Institutional Support Program Implementation

Senior human resources associate, energy and environment analyst – usaid bureau for latin america and the caribbean, intern- international project and proposal support, ispi, deputy chief of party, senior accounting associate, services you might be interested in, useful guides ....

How to Create a Strong Resume

Monitoring And Evaluation Specialist Resume

Resume Length for the International Development Sector

Types of Evaluation

Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (MEAL)

LAND A JOB REFERRAL IN 2 WEEKS (NO ONLINE APPS!)

Sign Up & To Get My Free Referral Toolkit Now:

• Contact sales

Start free trial

Project Evaluation Process: Definition, Methods & Steps

Managing a project with copious moving parts can be challenging to say the least, but project evaluation is designed to make the process that much easier. Every project starts with careful planning —t his sets the stage for the execution phase of the project while estimations, plans and schedules guide the project team as they complete tasks and deliverables.

But even with the project evaluation process in place, managing a project successfully is not as simple as it sounds. Project managers need to keep track of costs , tasks and time during the entire project life cycle to make sure everything goes as planned. To do so, they utilize the project evaluation process and make use of project management software to help manage their team’s work in addition to planning and evaluating project performance.

What Is Project Evaluation?

Project evaluation is the process of measuring the success of a project, program or portfolio . This is done by gathering data about the project and using an evaluation method that allows evaluators to find performance improvement opportunities. Project evaluation is also critical to keep stakeholders updated on the project status and any changes that might be required to the budget or schedule.

Every aspect of the project such as costs, scope, risks or return on investment (ROI) is measured to determine if it’s proceeding as planned. If there are road bumps, this data can inform how projects can improve. Basically, you’re asking the project a series of questions designed to discover what is working, what can be improved and whether the project is useful. Tools such as project dashboards and trackers help in the evaluation process by making key data readily available.

Get your free

Project Review Template

Use this free Project Review Template for Word to manage your projects better.

The project evaluation process has been around as long as projects themselves. But when it comes to the science of project management , project evaluation can be broken down into three main types or methods: pre-project evaluation, ongoing evaluation and post-project evaluation. Let’s look at the project evaluation process, what it entails and how you can improve your technique.

Project Evaluation Criteria

The specific details of the project evaluation criteria vary from one project or one organization to another. In general terms, a project evaluation process goes over the project constraints including time, cost, scope, resources, risk and quality. In addition, organizations may add their own business goals, strategic objectives and other project metrics .

Project Evaluation Methods

There are three points in a project where evaluation is most needed. While you can evaluate your project at any time, these are points where you should have the process officially scheduled.

1. Pre-Project Evaluation

In a sense, you’re pre-evaluating your project when you write your project charter to pitch to the stakeholders. You cannot effectively plan, staff and control a new project if you’ve first not evaluated it. Pre-project evaluation is the only sure way you can determine the effectiveness of the project before executing it.

2. Ongoing Project Evaluation

To make sure your project is proceeding as planned and hitting all of the scheduling and budget milestones you’ve set, it’s crucial that you constantly monitor and report on your work in real-time. Only by using project metrics can you measure the success of your project and whether or not you’re meeting the project’s goals and objectives. It’s strongly recommended that you use project management dashboards and tracking tools for ongoing evaluation.

Related: Free Project Dashboard Template for Excel

3. Post-Project Evaluation

Think of this as a postmortem. Post-project evaluation is when you go through the project’s paperwork, interview the project team and principles and analyze all relevant data so you can understand what worked and what went wrong. Only by developing this clear picture can you resolve issues in upcoming projects.

Free Project Review Template for Word

The project review template for Word is the perfect way to evaluate your project, whether it’s an ongoing project evaluation or post-project. It takes a holistic approach to project evaluation and covers such areas as goals, risks, staffing, resources and more. Download yours today.

Project Evaluation Steps

Regardless of when you choose to run a project evaluation, the process always has four phases: planning, implementation, completion and dissemination of reports.

1. Planning

The ultimate goal of this step is to create a project evaluation plan, a document that explains all details of your organization’s project evaluation process. When planning for a project evaluation, it’s important to identify the stakeholders and what their short-and-long-term goals are. You must make sure that your goals and objectives for the project are clear, and it’s critical to have settled on criteria that will tell you whether these goals and objects are being met.

So, you’ll want to write a series of questions to pose to the stakeholders. These queries should include subjects such as the project framework, best practices and metrics that determine success.

By including the stakeholders in your project evaluation plan, you’ll receive direction during the course of the project while simultaneously developing a relationship with the stakeholders. They will get progress reports from you throughout the project life cycle , and by building this initial relationship, you’ll likely earn their belief that you can manage the project to their satisfaction.

2. Implementation

While the project is running, you must monitor all aspects to make sure you’re meeting the schedule and budget. One of the things you should monitor during the project is the percentage completed. This is something you should do when creating status reports and meeting with your team. To make sure you’re on track, hold the team accountable for delivering timely tasks and maintain baseline dates to know when tasks are due.

Don’t forget to keep an eye on quality. It doesn’t matter if you deliver the project within the allotted time frame if the product is poor. Maintain quality reviews, and don’t delegate that responsibility. Instead, take it on yourself.

Maintaining a close relationship with the project budget is just as important as tracking the schedule and quality. Keep an eye on costs. They will fluctuate throughout the project, so don’t panic. However, be transparent if you notice a need growing for more funds. Let your steering committee know as soon as possible, so there are no surprises.

3. Completion

When you’re done with your project, you still have work to do. You’ll want to take the data you gathered in the evaluation and learn from it so you can fix problems that you discovered in the process. Figure out the short- and long-term impacts of what you learned in the evaluation.

4. Reporting and Disseminating

Once the evaluation is complete, you need to record the results. To do so, you’ll create a project evaluation report, a document that provides lessons for the future. Deliver your report to your stakeholders to keep them updated on the project’s progress.

How are you going to disseminate the report? There might be a protocol for this already established in your organization. Perhaps the stakeholders prefer a meeting to get the results face-to-face. Or maybe they prefer PDFs with easy-to-read charts and graphs. Make sure that you know your audience and tailor your report to them.

Benefits of Project Evaluation

Project evaluation is always advisable and it can bring a wide array of benefits to your organization. As noted above, there are many aspects that can be measured through the project evaluation process. It’s up to you and your stakeholders to decide the most critical factors to consider. Here are some of the main benefits of implementing a project evaluation process.

• Better Project Management: Project evaluation helps you easily find areas of improvement when it comes to managing your costs , tasks, resources and time.
• Improves Team performance: Project evaluation allows you to keep track of your team’s performance and increases accountability.
• Better Project Planning: Helps you compare your project baseline against actual project performance for better planning and estimating.
• Helps with Stakeholder Management: Having a good relationship with stakeholders is key to success as a project manager. Creating a project evaluation report is very important to keep them updated.

How ProjectManager Improves the Project Evaluation Process

To take your project evaluation to the next level, you’ll want ProjectManager , an online work management tool with live dashboards that deliver real-time data so you can monitor what’s happening now as opposed to what happened yesterday.

With ProjectManager’s real-time dashboard, project evaluation is measured in real-time to keep you updated. The numbers are then displayed in colorful graphs and charts. Filter the data to show the data you want or to drill down to get a deeper picture. These graphs and charts can also be shared with a keystroke. You can track workload and tasks, because your team is updating their status in real-time, wherever they are and at whatever time they complete their work.

Project evaluation with ProjectManager’s real-time dashboard makes it simple to go through the evaluation process during the evolution of the project. It also provides valuable data afterward. The project evaluation process can even be fun, given the right tools. Feel free to use our automated reporting tools to quickly build traditional project reports, allowing you to improve both the accuracy and efficiency of your evaluation process.

ProjectManager is a cloud-based project management software that has a suite of powerful tools for every phase of your project, including live dashboards and reporting tools. Our software collects project data in real-time and is constantly being fed information by your team as they progress through their tasks. See how monitoring, evaluation and reporting can be streamlined by taking a free 30-day trial today!

Deliver your projects on time and on budget

Start planning your projects.

Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods (2009)

Chapter: chapter 3 case study projects.

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects CHAPTER 3 – CASE STUDY PROJECTS Background Based on the results of the literature review, the research team began its case study data collection. The team proposed to identify and analyze at least six projects from across the spectrum of project delivery methods. The team was able to identify and gain access to information on nine projects worth more than $3.0 billion that represent the cross-section of delivery methods. In fact, the Silver Line project in Boston is a Design-Bid-Build/Multi-Prime project, which while it is not a different delivery method, was not a variation on DBB project delivery that was contemplated in the original proposal. Additionally, another enhancement to the original research plan was realized when the team was able to identify projects from more than one delivery method completed by the same agency. Thus, the depth and validity of the interviews were enhanced by permitting the interviewers to gain information that compared and contrasted the benefits and constraints of several delivery methods from a single source. Table 3.1 is a summary of the case study projects that were sampled for this research. One can see that the projects span from coast to coast and include two major metropolitan areas in the Rocky Mountain area as well. Northeastern University The Research Report 23

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-1 - Summary of Case Study Projects Case # Project Agency/Location Project Delivery Method Project Contract Amount (Original/Actual) Completion Date (Original/Actual) 1 T-REX (Southeast Corridor Light Rail) Regional Transportation District/ Denver, CO Design- Build $849/$940* million *Scope added after award 7 yrs/ 5 yrs – 3 mos 2 Weber County Commuter Rail Utah Transit Agency/ Salt Lake City to Ogden, UT CM-at- Risk $196/$241* million *Scope added after award 6 yrs/ 5 yrs-6 mos 3 University Line Utah Transit Agency/ Salt Lake City, UT Design- Build $124/118.5 million 2 yrs-2 mos/ 1 yr-5 mos 4 Medical Center Extension Utah Transit Agency/ Salt Lake City, UT Design- Build $95/89.4 million. 2 yrs-2 mos/ 1 yr-5 mos 5 Greenbush Commuter Rail Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority/ Boston, MA Design- Build $252/$300 million 3 yrs/ 5yrs* *Delay due to wetland permits 6 Hudson Bergen Light Rail New Jersey Transit Authority/ Hudson, NJ Design- Build- Operate- Maintain $554/$611 million 6 yrs / 6yrs-2 mos 7 Silver Line Project Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority/ Boston, MA Design- Bid-Build Multi- Prime $601/$604.4 million 4 yrs/ 8yrs* *Delays due to Big Dig project 8 Portland Mall Project TriMet/ Portland OR CM-at- Risk $143.8/143.8 million 4 yrs/4yrs 9 I-205 Light Rail Extension Project TriMet/ Portland OR Design- Build $163.8/$163.8 million 4 yrs/4yrs Case Study Collection Methodology The research team used the case study method described by Yin (1994) to furnish a rigorous methodology for collecting the data from the projects shown in Table 3.1. Yin maintains that planning the process of accessing and collecting data is essential preparation for efficiently and accurately collecting cogent information. Additionally, it is equally important to carefully select cases that can be compared directly with one another and also offer cross-sectional diversity. The selected sample fulfills this requirement in that there are five Design-Build (DB) projects from four different agencies and two Construction Manager-at-Risk (CMR) projects from two different agencies. The Design-Bid-Build (DBB)/Multi-Prime project is actually composed of a series of DBB projects undertaken by the same agency. It was chosen to permit the evaluation of this DBB-hybrid technique. The Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM) project is the only project for which there is no direct comparison. Nevertheless, its DB component can be reliably compared with the five other DB projects without loss of accuracy. Northeastern University The Research Report 24

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Northeastern University The Research Report 25 While the collection of cases needs to cover the project delivery method spectrum in this research, it is “important that the participant pool remain relatively small” (Colorado State University, 2006). Although fewer cases can sometimes lead to unsubstantiated research conclusions based on the probability of atypical case selections, it provides a better opportunity to examine each case in detail without becoming too cumbersome. The sample used here appears to be representative for the various project delivery methods that do not involve post-construction operations and maintenance. DBOM is a delivery method that is not common to the US and therefore that post-construction aspects of the Hudson-Bergen project must be viewed as a single point of data and no attempt will be made to generalize observations and conclusions from that project in this report. Even for DBOM, we have identified two other major projects with New Jersey Transit5that were used in the development of the Guidebook. Determining quantitative data, rather than qualitative, is vital to prioritizing needed information. Quantitative data offers factual data that is not subjective, which creates greater viability to the research and potential conclusions. Although case studies have the ability to provide distinctive data that can expand analysis and future results, data points (objectives) sought using the case study should complement other applied research methods to strengthen the overall research (Yin 1994). Thus, to achieve this goal, the structured interviews used to methodically collect case study data included quantitative data points regarding scope, financial and schedule information on each project. This data allows the comparison of the projects on an objective basis and permits the trends identified from the qualitative data to be validated or refuted by the quantitative data. Table 2.1 summarizes the quantitative cost and schedule data and one can see that all but three of the projects either finished or are on track to finish ahead of schedule. The Hudson-Bergen project finished just two months late; given the size and complexity of this project, this was a remarkable achievement. Thanks to the structured interview methodology, the delays observed on the two projects with significant delays were explained as being caused by external factors and not attributable to the project delivery method. In the same vein, five of the projects experienced cost overruns. However, on two projects (T-REX and Weber County), cost growth was explained by the agency’s decision to add scope to the project after award. Thus, the evaluation of the project delivery method for those two was validated by the detailed explanation that was obtained via structured interview. These examples not only demonstrate the value of the selected data collection method but also lend authority to the trends and emerging conclusions that will be offered later in this report. Case Study Matrix The following section contains a standardized matrix which displays the salient information on each case study project in the same fashion to permit ease of understanding and comparison. The matrix consists of the following components: 1. Project identification data: Qualitative 2. Project scope data: Quantitative 3. Project financial and schedule data: Quantitative 5 The first phase of Hudson-Bergen Project with a cost of $1.2m is one project where DBOM was used. Also, the South Jersey Light Rail, also known as “River Line” was another DBOM project that was built exclusively with state funds.

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects 4. Project delivery method decision rationale: Qualitative 5. Project issue data: Qualitative 6. Project risk analysis process data: Qualitative 7. Project procurement process data: Quantitative 8. Quality management data: Qualitative In addition to the data obtained using the structured interview questionnaire, detailed notes of the interviews were taken and used to furnish the basis for explanatory details on the standard questionnaire responses. Both the results of the questionnaire and the explanatory notes will be consolidated and assigned to an appendix in the final report of this research. As a whole, the interviews went very well with the minimum of inconsistencies. In all cases, the interviews were conducted with members of the agency’s project delivery team for each project. In order to achieve this, the team had to track down two project managers who had retired. Thus, the information collected was received first hand. Project scope data that was collected at the interview was validated by data obtained in the literature review which comprises Yin’s “converging lines of information” and the “use of multiple sources.” Multiple sources help alleviate lack of trust, increase viability, and frequently provide supplementary realms of thought and research that strengthens results. “Case studies are likely to be much more convincing and accurate if they are based on several different sources of information, following a corroborating mode” (Colorado State University, 2006). This goal was achieved in all cases. The remainder of this section contains the specific case study data collected for each project displayed in the standard matrix format. The format is a synthesis of the structured interview questionnaire output in a manner that permits both comparison and contrast. The cases are grouped by agency with multiple projects from the same agency being listed consecutively in the order shown in Table 3.1. Northeastern University The Research Report 26

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 1 — TREX Project Information Project Name: Southeast Corridor Light Rail Name of Agency: Regional Transportation District (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Denver, Colorado Delivery Method: Design-Build Project Description The new line expands the Regional Transportation District's (RTD) existing light rail system and extends light rail service along the southeast corridor of I-25 and I-225. An extensive bus feeder system makes it easy for people to get to and from the 13 new light rail stations. Bridges and underpasses provide pedestrian access to several of the stations. The Southeast Corridor Light Rail includes: • 19 miles of completely grade-separated, double-track light rail to RTD's existing system • Extension of light rail from the current station at I-25 and Broadway, along the west side of I-25 to Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County and in the median of I-225 to Parker Road in Aurora • 13 light rail stations with park-n-Rides at 12 of the stations • 6,000 parking spaces at park-n-Rides • Unique functional public art elements at each of the 13 new stations • 34 light rail vehicles to RTD's fleet • New light rail maintenance facility where the fleet will be maintained, cleaned and inspected (already complete) • A state-of-the-art communications system at a centralized control center for continuous monitoring and control of all rail operations Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $849 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $940 million (note: RTD increased scope of work after award) Project Schedule: Initial Advertising: RFQ in March 2000 RFP Issued to Shortlist: November 2000 Contract Award: June 2001 Original Project Delivery Period: 7 years (June 2008) Final Project Delivery Period: 5 years 3 months (September 2006) Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects Construction Manager-at-Risk: 1 to 5 projects Northeastern University The Research Report 27

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: Top leadership decision making. The decision was made from the governor’s office and the top management of RTD and CDOT. This was a unique procurement in that aspect. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Reduce/compress/accelerate project delivery period Encourage innovation Redistribute risk Complex project requirements Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method None Table 3-2 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Project Size -Risk management -Risk allocation -Schedule -Cost -Staffing required -Agency goals & objectives -Benefits & impacts -Fed/State/ Local laws* None -Construction claims -Adversarial relationship between project participants Remarks on Above Benefits *New DB law had to be passed for the project Life cycle issues did not enter into the decision Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project None -Agency experience* -Staff capability -Agency control of project -Third party agreement -Competition* -DBE/small business impact Stakeholder/ community input None Remarks on Above Constraints *Agency had no previous DB experience *Short list had three, but only two bidders submitted final proposals Summary Remarks Many DB benefits were accrued including a significantly faster schedule, a reduction in claims and a partnering atmosphere. DB did create some issues on third party impacts during construction due to speed of the project. A lesson learned on stations was that design of the stations happened somewhat after the contract award and the local stakeholders did not get the degree of input that they might otherwise have. Northeastern University The Research Report 28

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Contracting risk analysis done in conjunction with the project team and legal advisors. Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: None Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming Risk Assessment Techniques: Qualitative risk assessment only Risk Management Techniques: Not used Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: Risk matrix Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-3 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Manager No Qualifications of the Designer-of-Record Yes Past performance record on similar projects Yes Proposed schedule Yes Proposed schedule milestones Yes Lump sum price Yes Schedule of values Yes Qualifications of the Project Quality Manager Evaluated as part of quality plan Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager Evaluated as part of quality plan Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Evaluated as part of quality plan Design quality management plan Yes Construction quality assurance plan Yes Construction quality control plan Yes Independent quality assurance Yes Outline specifications No Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP): Solicitation package included the following elements: • Design criteria checklists • Standard design details • Standard guide specifications • Construction testing matrix Northeastern University The Research Report 29

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-4 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 9 9 9 Checking of design calculations 9 9 Checking of design quantities 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 9 Review of specifications 9 9 9 9 Approval of construction documents 9 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 9 Table 3-5 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 9 Technical review of construction material submittals* 9 9 9 Review of construction schedule 9 9 Checking of pay quantities** 9 9 Routine construction inspection*** 9 9 9 Quality control testing 9 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 9 Verification/acceptance testing**** 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 9 * DB QA Staff performed a pre-review of the submittals. **Paid based on progress of percent complete for each work item by work breakdown structure. *** Did not call it inspection, but rather called it auditing. QA/QC was with the contractor. Auditing only by the owner. DB Contractor also did do the bulk of the QA/QC inspection. ****See previous note on routine construction inspection. Northeastern University The Research Report 30

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Different from the ones used in traditional DBB projects: • The design-builder is responsible for QA/QC and owner established an extensive quality oversight program audit system and a quality requirements database. All the requirements from the contract were in the database and documented a both conforming and nonconforming. The database consisted of approximately 5,000 items. One system encompassed both design and construction QA/QC. • Minimum QA/QC plan content was specified. The design-builder had to be ISO 9000 certified within one year. Draft design and construction QA/QC plans were submitted in the DB proposal and these items were evaluated. These were two of the ten evaluation factors and made the proposers aware of the importance of quality management to the project Use of mandated agency quality management plans: None. However, key personal were evaluated in submittals required by both the RFQ and RFP. Any replacements had to be approved. However, the philosophy was not to try to manage personnel, but rather examine processes and performance. Northeastern University The Research Report 31

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 2 — Weber County Commuter Rail Project Information Project Name: Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail Project Name of Agency: Utah Transit Authority (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Weber County, Utah (project extends from Ogden to Salt Lake City) Delivery Method: Construction Manager-at-Risk (UTA uses the term CM/GC) Project Description The alignment begins in downtown Salt Lake City at the Inter-modal Hub and extends north along the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way through Davis and Weber Counties, passing on new elevated structures over the Ogden Yard continuing north of Union Station in Ogden to Pleasant View, UT. There are presently three freight sidings (industry tracks) from the UPRR mainline track crossing the commuter rail tracks. Grade crossings and grade crossing protective devices for the commuter rail line are also being constructed or reconstructed as needed. The Weber County Commuter Rail includes: • 44 miles of new transitway using single track with sections of double track at key locations to provide bypass capability. • 8 stations, including the Inter-modal Hub in Salt Lake City, which is being constructed under a different project. • Plans to have the rail line connect to bus transit at all stations; the line will also connect to the TRAX Light Rail system, interstate bus service and Amtrak at the Salt Lake City Inter-modal Hub. • All stations, including the downtown Salt Lake City Inter-modal Hub, are planned to include Park and Ride capabilities. • Increased fleet to 11 locomotives and 35 passenger vehicles • Upgrade of an existing maintenance facility and storage site at the former Union Pacific Diesel Maintenance Shop and Yard located in Salt Lake City immediately adjacent to the UPRR Main Line and the UTA-acquired right-of-way, to serve to maintain the Commuter Rail fleet. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project (CMR contract): $196 million [Total project estimated budget $541 million] Final Total Awarded Value of project: $241 million (note: UTA increased scope of work after award and includes $550,000 Preconstruction Services fee for CM*) [Currently total project budget is $611.6 million (FFGA)] Project Schedule: Preliminary design contract award: 2002 Initial Advertising: 2004 Final design contract award: 2005 Construction contract award: June 2005 Original Project Delivery Period: 6 years Final Project Delivery Period: 5 years 6 months Northeastern University The Research Report 32

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Expected completion (revenue operation date): September 30, 2008 *Proposed preconstruction services fees ranged from $550K (winner) to $3.0 million Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: 1 to 5 projects; >50% of typical budget Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: Convened a workshop that evaluated each possible project delivery method against stated project goals. Conducted formal risk analysis based on input from both the design and construction communities. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Dealing with railroad safety requirements on shared/adjacent ROW Establish project budget at an early stage of design development #2 Reduce/compress/accelerate project delivery period Get early construction contractor involvement Encourage innovation Facilitate Value Engineering Flexibility needs during construction phase Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method Chose CMR to both augment existing staff and be able to decrease the size of the agency’s full-time staff. Table 3-6 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Project Size -Risk management -Schedule -Cost -Stakeholder coordination* -Agency experience -Staffing required -Staff capability -Agency goals & objectives -Agency control of project -Third party agreements -Other * -Competition -DBE/small business impact -Benefits & impacts -Fed/State/ Local laws* -Stakeholder/ community input -Maintain- ability -Construction claims* -Adversarial relationship between project participants Remarks on Above Benefits *Stake holder coordination a big benefit of CMR * Expedites funding with FTA *New DB law had to be passed for the project Sustainability was not considered on this project * “HUGE” benefit…..no claims on the project so far. Northeastern University The Research Report 33

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Risk allocation -Labor unions -FTA/EPA regulations. None Remarks on Above Constraints Summary Remarks Sustainability will be considered in the future projects. CMR project delivery would be judged as beneficial for future projects with sustainability requirements. Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Project Scope, Schedule, Cost and Contracting Risk Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: Yes Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming, Scenario Planning, and Expert Interviews Risk Assessment Techniques: Qualitative risk assessment using expert panel with stakeholders included Evaluated project risks versus project goals Quantitative risk assessment using Monte Carlo simulation and expected value analysis. Risk Management Techniques: Risk register/charter, risk management plan, and risk mitigation plan. Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: Risk mitigation plan used to draft special payment clauses to allocate risk for flagging during construction to comply with RR safety requirements, subcontractor payment, and unsuitable subgrade. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-7 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Yes Past performance record on similar projects Yes Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP): Solicitation package included the following elements: • Quality management roles and responsibilities Northeastern University The Research Report 34

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-8 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Designer’s design staff CM pre- construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 9 9 Checking of design calculations 9 Checking of design quantities 9 9 Cost engineering reviews 9 9 Constructability reviews 9 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 Review of specifications 9 9 Approval of construction documents 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 9 Table 3-9 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Designer’s design staff CM construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 9 Review of construction schedule 9 9 Checking of pay quantities 9 9 Routine construction inspection 9 Quality control testing 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 9 Northeastern University The Research Report 35

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Different than the ones used in traditional DBB projects. CMR manages the quality management program Use of mandated agency quality management plans: UTA requires the CMR to develop and implement a plan that is in accordance with its standard QA/QC guidelines including a standard set of qualifications for the CMR’s quality management staff. Also mandates the use of standard design details for system compatibility purposes. Northeastern University The Research Report 36

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 3 — University Line Project Information Project Name: University Line Light Rail Project Name of Agency: Utah Transit Authority (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Delivery Method: Design-Build Project Description The University line expanded the Regional Transportation District's existing TRAX light rail system that connected downtown Salt Lake City with the southern suburb of Sandy and extended light rail service Main Street with Rice Eccles Stadium at the University of Utah using existing right-of-way. The existing bus feeder system will make it easy for people to get to and from the 4 new light rail platforms. Bridges provide pedestrian access to several of the stations. The University Line Light Rail project includes: • 2.3-mile overhead catenary branch line, connecting Main Street with Rice Eccles Stadium at the University of Utah. • 4 light rail platforms • Brought UTA’s fleet to a total of 33 light rail vehicles. • Furnished transit service for the 2002 Winter Olympics Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $124 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $118.5 million Project Schedule: Preliminary Design Contract Awarded: 2000 DB Project Advertised: 2000 Contract Award: June 2001 Original Project Delivery Period: 2 years 2 months* Final Project Delivery Period: 1 year 5 months* *Combined time for this and Medical Center Extension Project Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: 1 to 5 projects; >50% of typical budget Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: Convened a workshop that evaluated each possible project delivery method against stated project goals. Conducted formal risk analysis based on input from both the design and construction communities. Northeastern University The Research Report 37

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Reduce/compress/accelerate project delivery period Establish project budget at an early stage of design development Get early construction contractor involvement Encourage innovation Facilitate Value Engineering Flexibility needs during construction phase Complex schedule that had to be done by the 2002 Winter Olympics Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method Chose DB to both augment existing staff and be able to decrease the size of the agency’s full-time staff. Table 3-10 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Project Size -Risk management -Risk allocation -Schedule -Cost -Staffing required -Staff capability -Agency goals & objectives -Competition -DBE/small business impact -Stakeholder/ community input None -Construction claims -Adversarial relationship between project participants Remarks on Above Benefits Sustainability issues were not considered nor required No construction claims on this project Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project None -Agency experience* -Staff capability -Agency control of project -Third party agreement -Fed/State/ Local laws* -Labor unions -FTA/EPA regulations. None None Remarks on Above Constraints *Agency had no previous DB experience *New DB law had to be passed for the project Summary Remarks Schedule considerations drove this project’s delivery method selection. Northeastern University The Research Report 38

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Project Schedule Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: None Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming, Scenario Planning, Expert Interviews Risk Assessment Techniques: Qualitative risk assessment only; discussed schedule options and risks in detail Risk Management Techniques: Risk register/charter, risk management plan, and risk mitigation plan. Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: Risk assignment in contract, mainly clarifying those risks that the owner would retain. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-11 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Manager Yes Qualifications of the Designer-of-Record Yes Past performance record on similar projects Yes Proposed schedule Yes Proposed schedule milestones Yes Lump sum price Yes Schedule of values Yes Qualifications of the Project Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Yes Construction quality assurance plan Yes Construction quality control plan Yes Independent quality assurance Yes Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP): Solicitation package included the following elements: • None listed on questionnaire Table 3-12 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 Checking of design calculations 9 Checking of design quantities 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 Review of specifications 9 Northeastern University The Research Report 39

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Approval of construction documents 9 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 Table 3-13 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 Review of construction schedule 9 9 9 Checking of pay quantities Routine construction inspection 9 9 Quality control testing 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Different than the ones used in traditional DBB projects. The design- builder had more responsibility for QA/QC. Use of mandated agency quality management plans: Required the design-builder to develop a QA/QC plan that followed the agency’s published standard. Established a standard for the primary quality manager’s qualifications. Northeastern University The Research Report 40

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 4 — Medical Center Extension Project Information Project Name: Medical Center Extension Light Rail Project Name of Agency: Utah Transit Authority (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Salt Lake City, Utah Delivery Method: Design-Build Project Description The Medical Center Extension line continued the expansion of the Regional Transportation District's existing TRAX light rail system that connected downtown Salt Lake City with the southern suburb of Sandy and extended light rail service to the University of Utah Health Sciences Center from Rice Eccles Stadium at the University of Utah using existing right-of-way. The existing bus feeder system will make it easy for people to get to and from the 3 new light rail stations. Bridges provide pedestrian access to several of the stations. Of particular interest in the design of the new extension was the priority given to transit in traffic management techniques to ensure high-quality service. Motorists will have to navigate through what is described as a "large roundabout" at the intersection of South Campus and Campus Center drives, a traffic feature already in operation for several months prior to the opening of the line. The roundabout, fortified with several gates, is cited by UTA officials as the only one in the country with trains running through it. The Medical Center Extension Light Rail consists of: • 1.5-mile overhead catenary branch line, connecting Main Street with Rice Eccles Stadium at the University of Utah. • 3 new light rail stations. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $95 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $89.4 million Project Schedule: Preliminary Design Contract Awarded: 2000 DB Project Advertised: 2000 Contract Award: June 2001 Original Project Delivery Period: 2 years 2 months* Final Project Delivery Period: 1 year 5 months* *Combined time for this and University Line Project Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: 1 to 5 projects; >50% of typical budget Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Northeastern University The Research Report 41

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: Convened a workshop that evaluated each possible project delivery method against stated project goals. Conducted formal risk analysis based on input from both the design and construction communities. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Reduce/compress/accelerate project delivery period Establish project budget at an early stage of design development Get early construction contractor involvement Encourage innovation Facilitate Value Engineering Flexibility needs during construction phase Complex schedule that had to be done by the 2002 Winter Olympics Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method Chose DB to both augment existing staff and be able to decrease the size of the agency’s full-time staff. Table 3-14 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Project Size -Risk management -Risk allocation -Schedule -Cost -Staffing required -Staff capability -Agency goals & objectives -Competition -DBE/small business impact -Stakeholder/ community input None -Construction claims -Adversarial relationship between project participants Remarks on Above Benefits Sustainability issues were not considered nor required No construction claims on this project Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project None -Agency experience* -Staff capability -Agency control of project -Third party agreement -Fed/State/ Local laws* -Labor unions -FTA/EPA regulations. None None Remarks on Above Constraints *Agency had no previous DB experience *New DB law had to be passed for the project Summary Remarks Schedule considerations drove this project’s delivery method decision. Northeastern University The Research Report 42

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Project Schedule Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: None Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming, Scenario Planning, Expert Interviews Risk Assessment Techniques: Qualitative risk assessment only; discussed schedule options and risks in detail Risk Management Techniques: Risk register/charter, risk management plan, and risk mitigation plan. Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: Risk assignment in contract, mainly clarifying those risks that the owner would retain. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-15 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Manager Yes Qualifications of the Designer-of-Record Yes Past performance record on similar projects Yes Proposed schedule Yes Proposed schedule milestones Yes Lump sum price Yes Schedule of values Yes Qualifications of the Project Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Yes Construction quality assurance plan Yes Construction quality control plan Yes Independent quality assurance Yes Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP): Solicitation package included the following elements: • None listed on questionnaire Northeastern University The Research Report 43

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-16 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 Checking of design calculations 9 Checking of design quantities 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 Review of specifications 9 Approval of construction documents 9 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 Table 3-17 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 Review of construction schedule 9 9 9 Checking of pay quantities Routine construction inspection 9 9 Quality control testing 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Different than the ones used in traditional DBB projects. The design- builder has more responsibility for QA/QC Northeastern University The Research Report 44

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Use of mandated agency quality management plans: Required the design-builder to develop a QA/QC plan that followed the agency’s published standard. Established a standard for the primary quality manager’s qualifications. Northeastern University The Research Report 45

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 5 — Greenbush Commuter Rail Project Information Project Name: Greenbush Commuter Rail Project (Braintree to Scituate, Massachusetts) Name of Agency: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Boston, Massachusetts Delivery Method: Design-Build Project Description Greenbush is the first Design-Build project undertaken by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). The design-builder was given a conceptual design and was required to complete the design and furnish the construction according to performance based specification supplied by the owner. This commuter rail line “begins at the connection with the existing MBTA Old Colony Main Line at the Braintree Wye in East Braintree” and goes through the towns of Braintree, Weymouth, Hingham, Cohasset and Scituate in heavily settled area in Massachusetts. Project experienced a two year delay (as-planned duration was 3 years while the actual duration is 5 years) due to Mass DEP Wetlands permits not being issued prior to design-build contract award. Another major delaying factor was property acquisition with respect to CSX (private railroad company) land. The Greenbush Commuter Rail project will: • Form 18 miles in a corridor of “former New Haven Railroad Greenbush Branch to the terminus in the Greenbush section of Scituate.” • Build 7 new commuter rail stations. • Provide approximately 3,000 parking spaces along the corridor. • Be a “quiet zone”. • Start operating in 2007 according to the schedule. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project (DB contract): $252 million Final Total Awarded Value of project (DB contract): $300+ million; currently total project budget exceeds $512 million. Project Schedule: Preliminary Design Contract Awarded: 2001 DB Project Advertised: 2002 Contract Award: June 2002 Original Project Delivery Period: 3 years Final Project Delivery Period: 5 years* *2 year delay due to wetlands permits and rising project costs. Expected completion date: May 2007 (Actual completion date: September 2007) Northeastern University The Research Report 46

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; >50% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: none Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: MBTA decided to aggressively press for early completion of this project. In their words: “Force the project along! We would have been designing forever with all the towns involved in this project.” Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Reduce/compress/accelerate project delivery period Establish project budget at an early stage of design development Get early construction contractor involvement Encourage innovation Facilitate Value Engineering Encourage price competition (bidding process) Redistribute risk Flexibility needs during construction phase Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method No workforce issues were considered in the project delivery method decision. Northeastern University The Research Report 47

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-18 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Risk management -Risk allocation* -Agency goals & objectives -Sustainable design/goals -Sustainable construction/ goals Remarks on Above Benefits *All risk was more or less transferred to contractor. Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project None -Agency experience* -Staff capability -Agency control of project -Third party agreement -Fed/State/ Local laws* -FTA/EPA regulations.* None -Construction claims* -Adversarial relationship between project participants** -Specs need to be more explicit Remarks on Above Constraints *Agency had no previous DB experience *Lots of problems with State/Local laws and EPA regulations *Contractor has put in a lot of claims, claiming “scope change.” ** Adversarial relationships existed, even within DB team Summary Remarks Lack of prescriptive specs has caused MBTA to not get exactly things that they wanted. Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: None Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: None Risk Identification Techniques Used: None Risk Assessment Techniques: None Risk Management Techniques: None Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: None Northeastern University The Research Report 48

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-19 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Manager Yes Qualifications of the Designer-of-Record Yes Proposed schedule Yes Lump sum price Yes Schedule of values Yes Qualifications of the Project Quality Manager Yes Design submittals Yes Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP): Solicitation package included the following elements: • Standard guide specifications Table 3-20 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 9 9 9 Checking of design calculations 9 Checking of design quantities Acceptance of design deliverables 9 Review of specifications 9 9 9 Approval of construction documents 9 9 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 9 9 Table 3-21 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 Review of construction 9 Northeastern University The Research Report 49

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects schedule Checking of pay quantities 9 Routine construction inspection 9 9 Quality control testing 9 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 9 Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Essentially the same as the ones used in traditional DBB projects. Use of mandated agency quality management plans: Required the design-builder to develop a QA/QC plan that followed the agency’s published standard. Northeastern University The Research Report 50

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 6 — Hudson Bergen Light Rail Project Information Project Name: Hudson Bergen Light Rail (HBLR) Minimum Operable Segment (MOS)2 Name of Agency: New Jersey Transit Authority (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Hudson, New Jersey Delivery Method: Design-Build-Operate-Maintain Project Description The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System (HBLRTS) is a 20.3-mile light rail project that connects the densely populated New Jersey’s Hudson River waterfront communities. The project also supports significant economic development that continues to take place in the region. The HBLRTS is being built in three Minimum Operable Segments (MOS). The first Minimum Operable Segment (MOS1) runs from 34th Street in Bayonne to Hoboken Terminal. MOS2 runs from Hoboken Terminal to Tonnelle Avenue in North Bergen, with an additional southern extension to 22nd St. in Bayonne. MOS3 will run from 22nd St. to 8th St. in Bayonne. Project budget/cost is as follows: MOS1: $992 million MOS2: $1.2 billion MOS3: $89 million HBLRTS is funded by a combination of federal and state transportation funds. Construction of MOS1 and MOS2 is complete and operational. Design work for MOS3 is underway. Design work for MOS3 is scheduled for completion in January 2008. The DBOM contract for the MOS 2 consisted of: • Six miles of tracks including a 4100 foot tunnel with station access to street level 160 ft above the Hudson Bergen Light Rail. • Seven new light rail stations. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $554 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $611 million Project Schedule: Preliminary Design Contract Awarded: 2000 DB Project Advertised: N/A; this was issued as a change order to the MOS1 DBOM contract Contract Award: June 2001 Original Project Delivery Period: 6 years Final Project Delivery Period: 6 year 2 months Northeastern University The Research Report 51

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; >50% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: None Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; <10% of typical budget Design-Build-Operate-Maintain: 1 to 5 projects; 26-50% of typical budget Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: At the beginning the project was supposed to be a part of FTA turnkey demonstration but NJ transit decided not to do so. Another option was DBB. However, the agency felt that DBOM was an effective way to push the project through in the face of issues from various towns and third party stakeholders. If the project used the traditional DBB, there were many more stages where opposition from various parties could have delayed the project and possibly prevented its construction. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Reduce/compress/accelerate project delivery period Establish project budget at an early stage of design development Get early construction contractor involvement Encourage innovation Redistribute risk Complex project requirements Reduce life cycle costs (by integrating operations and maintenance) Provide mechanism for follow-on operations and/or maintenance Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method Chose DB to both augment existing staff and be able to decrease the size of the agency’s full-time staff. Table 3-22 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Project Size -Risk management -Risk allocation* -Schedule -Cost -Staff capability -Agency goals & objectives -DBE/small business impact* -Life cycle cost Maintainability -Construction claims* Remarks on Above Benefits *Fewer claims about differing site conditions. * DBE goals in the RFP were achieved successfully. 50% subcontracting was mandated to ensure participation by local contractors. *Fewer claims about differing site conditions. It can be great or terrible based on the characteristics of the contractor Northeastern University The Research Report 52

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project None -Staffing required* -Agency control of project** -Third party agreement*** -Competition* -Fed/State/ Local laws** None None Remarks on Above Constraints *Less staff employed because O&M was out sourced. The agency did not have a CM which proved to be a disadvantage. ** Agency had less control but that was not necessarily bad in this project. ***Third party agreements (real estate and utilities) were similar to ones used for DBB. *Tying OM to DB reduces the # of bidders in general. There were 2 final bidders for this project. **Enough design should be done so that the owner can get the permits not the DB contractor. DBOM helped the project push through. Summary Remarks Another advantage of DBOM was that at the time of the agreement between all the parties, the maximum level of contractual obligation is signed. In other words, all parties have obligated themselves not only for the construction but also for 15 years of O&M. This decreases the probability of facing barriers in different steps of project life cycle and facilitates the O&M specially because there is no need to ask for O&M budget annually. Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: None Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: Yes Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming, cost ranges were developed, but no modeling. Independent cost estimates were prepared by an outsider after the bids were opened. Risk Assessment Techniques: None Risk Management Techniques: Risk register/charter, risk management plan Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: White papers were prepared and reviewed by industry who provided input. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Northeastern University The Research Report 53

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-23 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Manager Yes Qualifications of the Designer-of-Record Yes Past performance record on similar projects Yes Proposed schedule Yes Proposed schedule milestones Yes Lump sum price Yes Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Yes Construction quality assurance plan Yes Construction quality control plan Yes Independent quality assurance No With 15-year O&M contract, no need was felt. Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP): Solicitation package included the following elements: • Design criteria checklists (Manual of Design Criteria) • Standard design details • Standard guide specifications Table 3-24 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 9 9 9 Checking of design calculations 9 9 9 Checking of design quantities 9 9 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 9 Review of specifications 9 9 9 9 Approval of construction documents 9 9 9 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 Northeastern University The Research Report 54

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-25 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 9 9 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 9 9 9 Review of construction schedule 9 9 Checking of pay quantities 9 9 9 Routine construction inspection 9 Quality control testing 9 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Similar to the ones used in traditional DBB projects. Use of mandated agency quality management plans: specify what must be included in the design-builder’s QA/QC plan. Northeastern University The Research Report 55

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 7 — Silver Line Project Project Information Project Name: Silver Line Busway/South Boston Piers Transitway Phase II. Name of Agency: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Boston, Massachusetts Delivery Method: Design-Bid-Build Multi-Prime with MBTA acting as its own CM Project Description This project is the second phase of a three-phase Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system in Boston, MA. The first phase, completed in 2002, consists of at-grade dedicated lanes along Washington Street in downtown Boston with seven stations. Phase II is an underground BRT connecting the MBTA’s rapid transit system at South Station to the South Boston Piers area. It consists of an underground tunnel and three stations, two of those, underground. Phase III is in planning stages and will be an extension of the Phase II tunnel. The Phase II project utilized the NATM mined excavation and ground freezing and mini-piping support under historic buildings in downtown Boston including the Russia Wharf complex. There was also a cut-and-cover tunnel section. The Buses are electric and the tunnel is designed such that it can be converted into Light Rail Transit in the future. Part of the project was executed in coordination with the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) highway project. The Silver Line project will: • Provide dedicated lanes in downtown Boston • Build 7 new bus transit stations at grade for the dedicated lane portion. • Provide 1.5 mile two-way underground tunnel to South Boston Piers area • Build 3 new stations for the South Boston Piers portion; 2 are underground. • Include 32 dual mode hybrid diesel-electric buses • Build a new vehicle maintenance facility. Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project: $601 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $604.4 million Project Schedule (NOTE: due to multi-prime DBB delivery, there were several design and construction packages. The dates shown below are for the program as a whole): Preliminary Design Contract Awarded: 1993 First Design/Construction Project Advertised: 1996 Original Project Delivery Period: 4 years Final Project Delivery Period: 8 years* *delays due to attributed to coordination problems with the Central Artery/Tunnel (Big Dig) project. The budget was also amended during the project. Northeastern University The Research Report 56

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; >50% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: none Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; 11-25% of typical budget Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: Because of the regulations of the state of Massachusetts, the only delivery system available to MBTA was DBB at the time of Silverline. This was a multi-prime project and both the design and the construction of the project were divided to several parts. The MBTA personnel were in charge of coordination of these pieces. A consultant was retained as the master planner and master schedule developer of the project and remained on board during project execution. It should be mentioned that the owner supplied some long-lead items (these were major permanent equipment pieces such as large fans, etc) in this project. MBTA also did some of the quality control tests by its own employees Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) The only method available at the time (alternative project delivery had not yet been authorized) Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method No workforce issues were considered in the project delivery method decision. Table 3-26 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Agency experience -Agency goals & objectives -Agency control of project* -DBE/small business impact -Labor Unions -Fed/State/ Local laws -FTA/EPA regulations -Life cycle costs* -Maintain- ability Remarks on Above Benefits *All risk was more or less transferred to contractor. *Benefit of DBB is giving a high level of control to the owner. This is not achieved in DB nor in CMR *No sustainable development issues were seriously considered. Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Schedule* -Staffing required -Staff capability -Competition* None -Construction claims -Adversarial relationship between project Northeastern University The Research Report 57

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects participants Remarks on Above Constraints *Schedule shortening was not a priority for this project. The deadline for revenues could be met by phasing the construction and dividing the project and using multiple primes. * Timing was unfortunate as the CA/T Project was using all available talent in the area. Because of Big Dig everyone was busy, competition not high. Summary Remarks Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Only for the Russia Wharf, the most complex portion of project Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: None Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming, scenario planning, and expert interviews (not conducted as formal processes) Risk Assessment Techniques: None Risk Management Techniques: None Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: None Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-27 - Procurement Phase Summary (NOTE: as DBB project, the next table applies only to the design contracts on this project) Required Elements of the Design Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Manager Yes Qualifications of the Designer-of-Record Yes Proposed schedule Yes Proposed schedule milestones Yes Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Yes Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP) None. MBTA has its own design groups that has electrical, mechanical, track, and signal subgroups. Northeastern University The Research Report 58

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-28 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Agency-hired design consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 9 Checking of design calculations 9 9 Checking of design quantities 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 Review of specifications 9 9 Approval of construction documents 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 Table 3-29 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Designer’s staff Builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 9 Review of construction schedule 9 9 9 Checking of pay quantities 9 Routine construction inspection 9 Quality control testing 9 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 9 Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: These were a traditional DBB projects. Northeastern University The Research Report 59

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Use of mandated agency quality management plans: Required the design consultants and construction contractors to develop a QA/QC plan that followed the agency’s published standard. Used standards agency specifications and details Northeastern University The Research Report 60

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 8 — Portland Mall Light Rail Project Information Project Name: Portland Mall Light Rail Project Name of Agency: Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Portland, Oregon Delivery Method: Construction Manager-at-Risk (Tri-Met uses the term CM/GC) Project Description The alignment loops the Portland Mall area from the Portland State University campus in the south to Union Station in the north. This project converts a bus transit mall to a multi-modal facility that incorporates the light rail, bus, auto lanes, and dedicated bicycle lanes. Grade crossings and grade crossing protective devices for the commuter rail line are also being constructed or reconstructed as needed. The Portland Mall Light Rail Project will include: • 2 miles of in-street light rail, plus additional lanes for buses, four auto pullouts for business delivery services and auto and bike access in left-side lanes separated by a rumble strip to ensure safe service. • 14 stations and bus stops. • Improvements to the Burnside intersections at 5th and 6th avenues will enhance traffic flow on these two streets. • Revitalize the Mall for retail businesses, pedestrians, cyclists and autos by renovating the streetscape and adding amenities, art and upgraded shelters. • 24 new light rail vehicles (with I-205 Extension project) (not part of the CM/GC contract). Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project (CMR contract): $143.8 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $143.8 million (note: includes $846,000 Preconstruction Services fee for CM) Project Schedule: Preliminary design contract award: 2004 Initial Advertising: May 2005 Final design contract award: October 2005 Construction contract award: June 2005 Original Project Delivery Period: 4 years Final Project Delivery Period: 4 years Expected completion (revenue operation date): September 30, 2009 Northeastern University The Research Report 61

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; 26-50% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: 6 to 10 projects; >50% of typical budget Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; 26-50% of typical budget Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: Developed a pro forma. Examined it and established public findings with regard to project complexity. Applied for and received a state exemption from low bid requirements. Input from internal sources only. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Complex project requirements Establish project budget at an early stage of design development Get early construction contractor involvement Encourage innovation Facilitate Value Engineering Redistribute risk Flexibility needs during construction phase Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method No workforce reasons were involved in the selection decision. Table 3-30 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Project Size -Risk management -Risk allocation -Schedule -Cost -Site* -Agency experience -Staffing required -Agency goals & objectives -Agency control of project -Third party agreements* -DBE/small business impact -Benefits & impacts -Stakeholder/ community input - Sustainable construction/ goals* -Construction claims* -Adversarial relationship between project participants Remarks on Above Benefits *Complex urban site coordination a big benefit * TriMet does its own permits and ROW *Sustainability was not considered on this project * No claims on the project. Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project None -Staff capability* -Competition* -Fed/State/ Local laws** -FTA/EPA regulations. None Lack of competition on self-performed work—track work. Remarks on *Lacked CMR *Lack of Northeastern University The Research Report 62

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Above Constraints experience competition on track-work **Need state waiver from low bid reg. Summary Remarks Very satisfied with CMR project delivery. No reason to use DBB on future complex projects like this one. Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Schedule and Cost per FTA procedures Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: Yes Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming, scenario planning, and influence diagramming. Also used Monte Carlo simulations. Risk Assessment Techniques: Qualitative risk assessment using FTA “Top-down” technique for cost categories with Beta factors supplied by FTA Quantitative risk assessment using Monte Carlo simulation and expected value analysis. Risk Management Techniques: Risk register/charter, risk management plan, and risk mitigation plan. Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: Risk management plan used to draft “Commercial Risk Table” in contract that quantifies cost risk for each area and assigns the risk to either TriMet or the CMR. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-31 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Yes Past performance record on similar projects Yes Design constructability review plan Yes Design cost engineering review plan Yes Construction quality management plan Yes Construction quality control plan Yes Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP) • Cost engineering review checklists • Quality management roles and responsibilities Northeastern University The Research Report 63

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Table 3-32 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Designer’s design staff CM pre- construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 9 9 Checking of design calculations 9 9 Checking of design quantities 9 9 9 Cost engineering reviews 9 9 9 Constructability reviews 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 9 Review of specifications 9 9 9 Approval of construction documents 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 Table 3-33 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Designer’s design staff CM construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 9 Review of construction schedule 9 Checking of pay quantities 9 Routine construction inspection 9 9 9 Quality control testing 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 Northeastern University The Research Report 64

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Same as ones used in traditional DBB projects. Use of mandated agency quality management plans: TriMet requires the CMR to develop and implement a plan that is in accordance with its standard QA/QC guidelines. Also mandates the use of standard specifications and design details for system compatibility purposes. Northeastern University The Research Report 65

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Case 9 — I-205 Light Rail Extension Project Information Project Name: I-205 Light Rail Extension Project Name of Agency: Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) (a Public Transit Agency) Location: Portland, Oregon Delivery Method: Design-Build Project Description The I-205 MAX Light Rail Extension Project connects Clackamas County, one of the region's fastest growing areas, with Portland State University (PSU), in conjunction with the Portland Mall Light Rail Project. The 8.3-mile light rail extension also is a critical element in the long-range transportation plan, positioning the region for future light rail extensions to Milwaukie, Vancouver and to the southwest. It will have eight new stations and five Park & Ride lots providing approximately 2,200 spaces. Station design and placement will enhance transit access by connecting MAX to bus service all along this corridor, including 10 bus lines at Clackamas Town Center. The line's design will emphasize rider and pedestrian safety. Extensive community input and support has made light rail the preferred transportation option along the I-205 corridor. The construction of the I-205 segment will take place largely along an existing transitway, which lends itself to a design-build construction approach. This allows the contractor to complete the design while the alignment is being built, making it faster and less expensive. The I-205 Light Rail Extension Project will include: • 8.3 miles of light rail in existing transitway. • 8 stations • 5 Park & Ride lots. • 24 new light rail vehicles (with Portland Mall project). Project Financial and Schedule Information Original Total Awarded Value of project (DB contract): $163.8 million Final Total Awarded Value of project: $163.8 million Project Schedule: Preliminary design contract award: 2004 Initial Advertising: July 2005 Final design-build contract award: November 2005 Original Project Delivery Period: 4 years Final Project Delivery Period: 4 years Expected completion (revenue operation date): September 30, 2009 Northeastern University The Research Report 66

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Project Delivery Method Decision Rationale Agency Project Delivery Experience Design-Bid-Build: More than 10 projects; 26-50% of typical budget Construction Manager-at-Risk: 6 to 10 projects; >50% of typical budget Design-Build: 1 to 5 projects; 26-50% of typical budget Agency Project Delivery Decision-making Process: Developed a pro forma. Examined it and established public findings with regard to project complexity. Applied for and received a state exemption from low bid requirements. Input from internal sources only. Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method (most significant reason) Establish project budget at an early stage of design development Reduce/compress/accelerate project schedule Get early construction contractor involvement Redistribute risk Complex project requirements Workforce-Related Reasons for Selecting Project Delivery Method No workforce reasons were involved in the selection decision. Table 3-34 - Case Study Project Issues Issues Project-level Agency-level Public Policy/ Regulatory Life Cycle Other Considered a Benefit of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -Project Size -Risk management -Risk allocation -Schedule -Cost -Staffing required -DBE/small business impact -Labor unions -Stakeholder/ community input* None -Adversarial relationship between project participants Remarks on Above Benefits *Design- builder PM able to be involved Sustainability issues were not considered nor required No construction claims on this project so far Considered a Constraint of the Chosen Delivery System to this Project -LEED certification* -Agency experience -Staff capability* -Agency control of project -Third party agreement -Competition* -Fed/State/ -Local laws FTA/EPA regulations. -Life cycle cost -Maintain- ability -Sustainable design/goals -Sustainable construction/ goals -Construction claims* Remarks on Above Constraints *Need to have greater scope definition to achieve LEED at an earlier time than this *Difficult to train staff with no previous DB experience *Fewer bidders DB moves too fast to incorporate these in initial RFP *Early pricing leaves owner exposed to potential claims for scope not Northeastern University The Research Report 67

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects DB project had included in RFP Summary Remarks TriMet did not mandate a requirement for sustainability. Rather it asked for sustainable design and construction features to be proposed by the design-builder as a betterment. Case Study Project Risk Analysis Process Formal Risk Analysis Areas: Schedule and Cost per FTA procedures Project Cost Estimate Uncertainty Analysis: Yes Risk Identification Techniques Used: Brainstorming, scenario planning, and influence diagramming. Also used Monte Carlo simulations. Risk Assessment Techniques: Qualitative risk assessment using FTA “Top-down” technique for cost categories with Beta factors supplied by FTA Quantitative risk assessment using Monte Carlo simulation and expected value analysis. Risk Management Techniques: Risk register/charter, risk management plan, and risk mitigation plan. Risk Technique used to Draft Contract: Risk management plan used to draft “Commercial Risk Table” in contract that quantifies cost risk for each area and assigns the risk to either TriMet or the Design-builder. Case Study Project Procurement Process Summary Table 3-35 - Procurement Phase Summary Required Elements of the Proposal Evaluated for award decision Remarks Qualifications of the Project Manager Yes Qualifications of the Designer-of-Record Yes Past performance record on similar projects Yes Proposed schedule No Proposed schedule milestones No Schedule fixed by RFP Lump sum price No Schedule of values No Unit Prices No Price competition was fixed fee with costs to be negotiated after award Qualifications of the Project Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Design Quality Manager Yes Qualifications of the Construction Quality Manager Yes Construction quality assurance plan Yes Construction quality control plan Yes Proposed sustainable design/construction Yes Sustainability treated as a betterment Technical Elements of the Solicitation Package (RFQ/RFP) Design criteria checklists Standard design details Northeastern University The Research Report 68

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Standard guide specifications Table 3-36 - Design Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for design management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of design deliverables 9 9 9 Checking of design calculations 9 Checking of design quantities 9 9 9 Acceptance of design deliverables 9 Review of specifications 9 9 9 Approval of construction documents 9 Approval of payments for design progress 9 Approval of post-award design QA/QC plans 9 Table 3-37 - Construction Phase Summary Responsibility allocation for construction management tasks Agency personnel Design- builder’s design staff Design- builder’s construction staff Agency-hired consultant Technical review of construction shop drawings 9 9 Technical review of construction material submittals 9 9 Review of construction schedule 9 Checking of pay quantities 9 Routine construction inspection 9 9 Quality control testing 9 Establishment of horizontal and vertical control on site 9 9 Verification/acceptance testing 9 9 Approval of progress payments for construction progress 9 Approval of construction post-award QA/QC plans 9 Northeastern University The Research Report 69

TCRP G-08 – Project Delivery Methods Chapter 3 - Case Study Projects Northeastern University The Research Report 70 Quality Management Summary QA/QC Plans: Different than the ones used in traditional DBB projects. The design- builder has more responsibility for QA/QC Use of mandated agency quality management plans: Required the design-builder to develop a QA/QC plan that followed the agency’s published standard. Established a standard for the primary quality manager’s qualifications.

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Highway Research Program (TCRP) Web-Only Document 41: Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods explores pertinent literature and research findings related to various project delivery methods for transit projects. The report also includes definitions of project delivery methods and highlights the existing selection approaches commonly used by transit agencies.

A companion publication to TCRP Web-Only Document 41 is TCRP Report 131: A Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods , which examines various project delivery methods for major transit capital projects. The report also explores the impacts, advantages, and disadvantages of including operations and maintenance as a component of a contract for a project delivery method.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

PerformanceEvaluation →

No results found in working knowledge.

• Were any results found in one of the other content buckets on the left?
• Try removing some search filters.
• Use different search filters.

For enquiries call:

+1-469-442-0620

• Project Management

Top 15 Project Management Case Studies with Examples 2024

Home Blog Project Management Top 15 Project Management Case Studies with Examples 2024

Having worked for more than 9 years in the dynamic field of project management, I would strongly refer to real-world case studies as invaluable resources for both budding and experienced professionals. These case studies provide critical insights into the challenges and triumphs encountered in various industries, illustrating the application of project management principles in practical scenarios.   I have curated the project management case studies as a part of this article in such a way that it delves into a selection of compelling case studies, ranging from the healthcare sector to infrastructure and technology. Each case study is a testament to the strategic planning, adaptability, and innovative problem-solving skills necessary in today's fast-paced business environment. These narratives not only highlight past successes but also offer guidance for future projects, making them essential tools for anyone eager to excel in project management.

What is Case Study?

A case study refers to an in-depth examination of a specific case within the real-world context. It is a piece of content that sheds light on the challenges faced, solutions adopted, and the overall outcomes of a project. To understand project management case studies, it is important to first define what a project is . A project is a temporary endeavor with a defined beginning and end, aimed at achieving a specific goal or objective. Case studies are generally used by businesses during the proposal phase. However, they are also displayed on the websites of companies to provide prospects with a glance at the capabilities of the brands. It can even serve as an effective tool for lead generation. In simple words, case studies are stories that tell the target audience about the measures and strategies that the organization adopted to become successful.

What is Project Management Case Study?

A project management case study is a piece of content that highlights a project successfully managed by the organization. It showcases the challenges that the organization faced, the solutions adopted, and the final results. Keep reading in order to explore examples of successful project management case studies.

Top 15 Project Management Case Studies and Examples 

Are you looking for some project management case study examples? If yes, here are some of the best examples you can explore. Let’s dive in! Before diving in, here is the list of top 15 project management case studies: 

• Mavenlink Helps Improve Utilization Rates by 15% for BTM Global
• Boncom Reduces Billing Rate Errors by 100%
• whyaye! Reaches 80% Billable Utilization
• Metova Increases Billable Utilization by 10%
• Appetize Doubles Length of Forecasting Outlook
• RSM Improves Client Satisfaction and Global Business Processes
• CORE Business Technologies Increases Billable Utilization by 35%
• Health Catalyst Improves Business Processes and Increases Consistency in Project Delivery
• Optimus SBR Improves Forecasting Horizon by 50%
• PlainJoe Studios Increases Projects Closing Within Budget by 50%
• RPI Consultants Decreases Admin Time by 20%
• CBI's PMO Increases Billable Utilization By 30%
• Butterfly Increases Billable Time by 20%
• TeleTracking Increases Billable Utilization by 37%
• Taylors Improves Utilization Rates by 15%

1. Mavenlink Helps Improve Utilization Rates by 15% for BTM Global

The case study is all about how Mavenlink helped BTM Global Consulting to save hours of work and enhance utilization with resource management technology. BTM Global Consulting offers system development and integration services to diverse clients. The challenges that the company faced were that tools like Netsuite OpenAir and Excel spreadsheets were not able to meet the customization needs as the company grew. It impacted their overall productivity.

BTM Global saw the following benefits: 

• 15% increase in utilization for project managers
• 10% increase in companywide utilization
• 4-hour resource allocation work reduced to 10 minutes
• 100% Company-wide time tracking adoption

In order to overcome the challenge, the solution they adopted was to switch to Mavenlink. The result was that it increased the utilization of the company by 10% and enhanced project manager utilization by 15%. It also reduced resource allocation work from 4 hours to just 10 minutes.

2. Boncom Reduces Billing Rate Errors by 100% With Mavenlink

Boncom is an advertising agency that collaborates with different purpose driven brands to create goods worldwide. The challenge was that the company relied on several-point solutions for delivering client-facing projects. However, the solutions failed to offer the required operational functionality. An ideal solution for Boncom was to adopt Mavenlink. The result was that the billing rate error got reduced by 100%. Accurate forecasting became possible for Boncom, and the company could generate reports in much less time.

3. whyaye! Reaches 80% Billable Utilization with Mavenlink

Here are the top benefits whyaye got: 

• 6% increase in utilization
• Tripled company size
• Doubled in number of new clients every quarter
• Support through constant business scaling

whyaye is a digital transformation consultancy delivering IT transformation solutions to businesses operating in diverse sectors. The challenge was that whyaye used to manage resources and projects using tools such as emails, PowerPoint, and Microsoft Excel. However, with the growth of the company, they were not able to access project data or gain insights for effective management of the projects . The ultimate solution to this challenge was to make a switch to Mavenlink. The result was an increase in the utilization by 6%, doubling of new clients, tripling of the company size, and seamless support through business growth.

4. Metova Increases Billable Utilization by 10% With Mavenlink

If you are looking for a project planning case study, Metova can be the right example. Metova is a technology firm, a Gold Partner of Microsoft, and an advanced consulting partner of AWS. The challenge was that the company handled several projects at a time. However, its heavy dependence on tools like Google Sheets limited the growth capabilities of the organization. So, the company looked for a solution and switched to Mavenlink. The result was that it was able to increase its billable utilization by 10%, increase its portfolio visibility, and standardize its project management process.

5. Appetize Doubles Length of Forecasting Outlook with Mavenlink

Here the the benefits Appetize got with Mavenlink: 

• Forecasting horizon increases to 12 weeks
• Management of 40+ major projects per quarter
• Support for rapid companywide scaling
• Salesforce integration supports project implementation

Appetize is one of the leading cloud-based points of sale (POS), enterprise management, and digital ordering platform that is trusted by a number of businesses. The challenge of the company was that its legacy project tracking systems were not able to meet the growing needs of the company. They experienced growth and manual data analysis challenges. The solution they found was to switch to Mavenlink. The result was an increase in the forecast horizon to 12 weeks, support for effective companywide scaling, easy management of over 40 major projects, and Salesforce integration for project implementation.

6. RSM Improves Client Satisfaction and Global Business Processes with Mavenlink

RSM is a tax, audit, and consulting company that provides a wide array of professional services to clients in Canada and the United States. The challenge of the company was that its legacy system lacked the necessary features required to support their work- and time-intensive projects and delivered insights relating to the project trends. An ideal solution to this challenge was to switch to Mavenlink. The result was better to risk mitigation in tax compliance, improved client-team communication, templatized project creation, and better use of the KPIs and project status.

7. CORE Business Technologies Increases Billable Utilization by 35% with Mavenlink

Here are the top benefits CORE Business Technologies got with Mavenlink: 

• Simultaneous in-progress projects doubled
• 100% company-wide time entry compliance
• 35% Increase in Billable Utilization
• 50% Increase in Team Productivity

Another top project management case study is the Core Business Technologies. CORE Business Technologies is a reputed single-source vendor self-service, in-person, and back-office processing to the clients. It offers SaaS-based payment solutions to clients. The challenge faced by the company was that its tools like spreadsheets, Zoho, and Microsoft Project led to a hectic work schedule owing to a huge number of disconnected systems. The solution to the challenge was to switch to Mavenlink. The result was the enhancement of team productivity by 50%, time entry compliance by 100%, and enhancement of the billable utilization rate by 35%.

Discover the leading KnowledgeHut's Project Management Courses:

8. Client Success: Health Catalyst Improves Business Processes and Increases Consistency in Project Delivery with Mavenlink

Here are the top benefits Health Catalyst saw with Mavenlink:   

• Consistency in Successful Project Delivery 
• Improved Interdepartmental Communication 
• Deeper Resource Data Insights 
• Stronger Resource Forecasting

Health Catalyst is a company that delivers data and analytics services and technology to different healthcare organizations. The firm provides assistance to technicians and clinicians in the healthcare sector. The challenge of the company was that the tools like Intacct and spreadsheets that is used for project management were not able to provide the required data insights and clarity for better project management. It also limited effective resource management. The solution was to embrace Mavenlink. The result was better resource forecasting, enhanced interdepartmental communication, consistency in project delivery, and better resource data insights .

9. Client Success: Optimus SBR Improves Forecasting Horizon by 50% with Mavenlink

Optimus SBR is a leading professional service provider in North America. It offers the best results to companies operating in diverse sectors, including healthcare, energy, transportation, financial services, and more. The challenge was that legacy software tools that the firm used gave rise to project management issues. The company was not able to get a real-time revenue forecast or gain insights into its future financial performance. The solution that the company adopted was to switch to Mavenlink. The result was better data-driven hiring decisions, efficient delivery of remote work, and enhancement of the forecasting horizon by 50%.

10. Client Success: PlainJoe Studios Increases Projects Closing Within Budget by 50% With Mavenlink

Here are the benefits how Mavenlink helped PlainJoe: 

• Improved data insights for project success
• Enablement of fast shift to remote work
• Improved budgeting
• Increased rates in billing

PlainJoe Studios is an experimental design studio that focuses on digitally immersive and strategic storytelling. The company has a team of strategists, architects, and problem solvers to create value for the clients. The challenge of the company was that the manual processing of the company affected its ability to grow and manage the diverse project effectively. They lacked clarity about their project needs and profitability. The solution to deal with the challenge was to switch to Mavenlink. The result was an enhancement in the billing rates by 15%, better project closing within budget by 50%, better data insights for the success of different projects, and a faster shift to remote work.

11. Client Success: RPI Consultants Decreases Admin Time by 20% With Mavenlink

If you are looking for an example of one of the best software project management case studies, then RPI Consultants can be the ideal one. RPI Consultants offer expert project leadership and software consulting services for enterprise-level implementation of solutions and products. The challenge was that the task management solutions adopted by the company gave rise to a number of complications. It resulted in poor interdepartmental transparency and time-consuming data entry. The ultimate solution that the company embraced was to switch to Mavenlink. The result was a rise in the utilization rate by 5%, lowing of admin time by 20%, better forecasting and resource management, and a single source for gaining insights into the project data.

12. Client Success: CBI's PMO Increases Billable Utilization By 30% With Mavenlink

CBI is a company that is focused on protecting the reputations, data, and brands of its clients. The challenge that the company faced was that the solutions used were unable to meet the growing needs of the organization. The systems were outdated, data sharing was not possible, and time tracking was inconsistent. The solution to the challenge was to switch to Mavenlink. The result was better interdepartmental alignment, enhancement of time tracking to support business growth, an increase in the billable utilization rate by 30%, and detailed insights for a greater success of the projects.

13. Client Success: Butterfly Increases Billable Time by 20% with Mavenlink

Butterfly is a leading digital agency that provides digital strategy, website design and development services, and ongoing support to businesses across Australia. The challenge was that the different legacy systems used by the agency limited its capability of effective project management and reporting. The systems were time consuming and cumbersome. In order to deal with the challenge, the solution was to make a switch to Mavenlink. The result was the enhancement of billable time by 20%, fast reporting insights, enhancement of productive utilization by 16%, and better Jira integration.

14. Client Success: TeleTracking Increases Billable Utilization by 37% With Mavenlink

TeleTracking Technologies is a leading provider of patient flow automation solutions to various hospitals in the healthcare sector. The challenge of the company was that it used different systems such as Microsoft Excel, Sharepoint, MS Project, Jira, and Netsuite. The use of a variety of solutions created a number of challenges for the company. It had poor forecasting capability, an insufficient time tracking process, and unclear resource utilization. The solution was to switch to Mavenlink. The result was the enhancement of time tracking compliance by 100%, rise in hours to date by 18%, and enhancement of billable utilization by 37%.

15. Client Success: Taylors Improves Utilization Rates by 15% with Mavenlink

This is a perfect example of a construction project management case study. Taylor Development Strategists is a leading civil engineering and urban planning organization in Australia. The challenge that the company faced was that the systems that it used were not able to support the growth of the business. There were a lot of inefficiencies and limitations. The solution to the challenge was to switch to Mavenlink. The result was better global collaboration, an increase in the utilization rate by 15%, consistency of timesheet entry, and in-depth insights relating to utilization and project targets.

Top Cities where Knowledgehut Conduct Project Management Certification Training Course Online

Transform your management approach with our online agile courses . Discover how to adjust, cooperate, and create like never before.

Start Creating Your Project Management Case Study

Not that you have a detailed idea about project management case studies, it is time to prepare your own. When doing the project management case study exercise, make sure to focus on covering all the important elements. Clearly stating the challenges and the solutions adopted by the company is important. If you want to get better at project management, getting a PMP Certification can be beneficial.

Case Study Best Practices and Tips 

• Involve your clients in the preparation of the case study. 
• Make use of graphs and data. 
• Mix images, texts, graphs, and whitespace effectively.

Project Management Case Studies Examples

Hospital el pilar improves patient care with implementing disciplined agile.

If you are looking for an example of one of the best hospital related project management case studies, then Hospital El Pilar can be the ideal one. Hospital El Pilar is a private hospital in Guatemala City, Guatemala, that provides comprehensive care to patients in various medical specialties. The challenge was that the hospital’s application development team faced several obstacles in managing and delivering projects, such as unclear priorities, a lack of visibility, little interaction with users, and competing demands. The solution that the team adopted was to use Disciplined Agile® (DA™), a flexible and pragmatic approach to project management that optimizes the way of working (WoW). The result was improved project outcomes, increased user satisfaction, greater transparency, and more trust from stakeholders and customers.

British Columbia’s Ministry of Technology and Infrastructure (MoTI) gets its principal corridor for transportation up in 35 days

Reconnecting Roads After Massive Flooding (2022) is a case study of how the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) used a project management approach based on the PMBOK® Guide to restore critical routes after a catastrophic weather event. It is one of the examples of successful project management case studies you can look into. The challenge was that an atmospheric river caused severe flooding, landslides, and bridge collapses, cutting off the lower mainland from the rest of Canada2. The solution was to prioritize the reopening of Highway 5, the principal corridor for transportation of goods and people, by creating scopes, work breakdown structures, and schedules for each site3. The result was that Highway 5 was reopened to commercial traffic in 35 days, despite additional weather challenges and risks4. The construction project management case study we discussed demonstrated the benefits of flexibility, collaboration, and communication in emergency response.

Project Management Case Study Template 

To create a well-crafted and highly informative case study template in the realms of project management, you should start by providing a brief overview of the client's company, focusing on its industry, scale, and specific challenges. Follow with a detailed section on the challenge, emphasizing the unique aspects of the project and obstacles faced. Next, you might want to describe the solution implemented, detailing the strategies, methodologies, and tools used. Then, you would need to present the results, quantifying improvements and highlighting objectives achieved. Finally, please conclude the case study with a summary, encapsulating key takeaways and emphasizing the project's success and its implications for future endeavors. By following this structure, you can present a comprehensive yet concise analysis that is ideal for showcasing project management expertise and insights. You can also refer to the template for crafting a better case study on project management – Template for writing case studies.

By now, you must have gained a comprehensive knowledge of preparing a project management case study. This article elaborately explains the significance of real life project management case studies as vital tools for demonstrating a company's expertise in handling complex projects. These case studies, showcasing real-world scenarios, serve as compelling evidence of a firm's capability to navigate challenges and implement effective solutions, thereby boosting confidence in potential clients and partners. They are not only a reflection of past successes but also a lighthouse guiding future project endeavors in the discipline of project management within the fields of construction, pharmacy, technology and finance, highlighting the importance of strategic planning, innovation, and adaptability in project management. If you are aspiring to excel in this field, understanding these case studies is invaluable. However, you would also need to learn from project management failures case studies which would provide a roadmap to mastering the art of project management in today's dynamic business landscape.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

In order to write a project management case study, keep everything brief but mention everything in detail. Make sure to write it with clarity and include graphs and images. 

A project study must include information about the client, how your company helped the client in resolving a problem, and the results.

The best-case studies on project management have been listed above. It includes BTM Global, Butterfly, Boncom, and more.

Kevin D.Davis

Kevin D. Davis is a seasoned and results-driven Program/Project Management Professional with a Master's Certificate in Advanced Project Management. With expertise in leading multi-million dollar projects, strategic planning, and sales operations, Kevin excels in maximizing solutions and building business cases. He possesses a deep understanding of methodologies such as PMBOK, Lean Six Sigma, and TQM to achieve business/technology alignment. With over 100 instructional training sessions and extensive experience as a PMP Exam Prep Instructor at KnowledgeHut, Kevin has a proven track record in project management training and consulting. His expertise has helped in driving successful project outcomes and fostering organizational growth.

Avail your free 1:1 mentorship session.

Something went wrong

Upcoming Project Management Batches & Dates

Browse Course Material

Course info.

• Carl D. Martland

Departments

• Civil and Environmental Engineering
• Supplemental Resources

As Taught In

• Project Management
• Real Estate
• Transportation
• Civil Engineering

Learning Resource Types

Project evaluation: essays and case studies, term project: case studies in project evaluation.

You are leaving MIT OpenCourseWare

This website may not work correctly because your browser is out of date. Please update your browser .

Using case studies to do program evaluation

• Using case studies to do program evaluation File type PDF File size 79.49 KB

This paper, authored by Edith D. Balbach for the California Department of Health Services is designed to help evaluators decide whether to use a case study evaluation approach.

It also offers guidance on how to conduct a case study evaluation.

This resource was suggested to BetterEvaluation by Benita Williams.

• Using a Case Study as an Evaluation Tool 3
• When to Use a Case Study 4
• How to Do a Case Study 6
• Unit Selection 6
• Data Collection 7
• Data Analysis and Interpretation 12

Balbach, E. D. 9 California Department of Health Services, (1999).  Using case studies to do program evaluation . Retrieved from website: http://www.case.edu/affil/healthpromotion/ProgramEvaluation.pdf

'Using case studies to do program evaluation' is referenced in:

Back to top

© 2022 BetterEvaluation. All right reserved.

• Medical Devices

One billion people globally to have osteoarthritis by 2050: Lancet Study

In 2020, 595 million people were found to be affected by osteoarthritis, a 132 per cent increase from 256 million people in 1990, the study led by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), Washington, US, as part of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021 said.

By 2050, nearly one billion people globally are projected to be living with osteoarthritis, which affects joints, according to new research published in The Lancet Rheumatology journal.

Currently, 15 per cent of the world’s population aged 30 years or above experience osteoarthritis, the study found after analysing 30 years of osteoarthritis data (1990-2020) from more than 200 countries.

The study attributed the rapid increase in the osteoarthritis cases mainly to aging, population growth and obesity.

“With the key drivers of people living longer and a growing world population, we need to anticipate stress on health systems in most countries,” said Jaimie Steinmetz, the study’s corresponding author and lead research scientist at IHME.

Obesity or high body mass index (BMI) was an important risk factor for osteoarthritis, the study results showed, and that it played a greater role over time as rates of obesity had increased.

In 1990, the first year of the study, obesity was found to be responsible for 16 per cent of the disability due to osteoarthritis, which had risen to 20 per cent in the year 2020.

The global osteoarthritis burden could be reduced by an estimated 20 per cent, if obesity was effectively addressed in the population, the study said.

“The role that physical inactivity plays in obesity and pain associated with osteoarthritis can have opposite and unintended negative cycles.

“For example, being physically active can prevent injuries earlier in life and can even be beneficial for someone with joint pain. It’s counterintuitive, but having joint pain doesn’t mean we should remain sedentary,” said Liane Ong, lead research scientist at IHME, who supervised and co-authoured the study.

Osteoarthritis was found to most commonly affect the knees and the hips, which the study projects to also be the most affected by 2050.

Women more than men are expected to grapple with this condition, the study said.

In 2020, 61 per cent of osteoarthritis cases were in women versus 39 per cent in men. There is a combination of possible reasons behind this gender difference.

“The reasons for gender differences in osteoarthritis prevalence are being investigated, but researchers believe that genetics, hormonal factors, and anatomical differences play a role,” said Jacek Kopek, the study’s senior author and professor in the School of Population and Public Health at the University of British Columbia, Canada.

With no effective cure for osteoarthritis right now, prevention and early intervention strategies required critical focus, including making expensive, effective treatments like joint replacements more affordable in low- and middle-income countries, the authors said.

Health care systems and governments have an opportunity to engage and participate in identifying vulnerable populations, addressing drivers of obesity, and developing management strategies to prevent or slow down the progression of osteoarthritis, they said. 

Get live Share Market updates, Stock Market Quotes , and the latest India News and business news on Financial Express. Download the Financial Express App for the latest finance news.

• Stock Market Stats

Related News

The IMD has issued a heatwave alert for Delhi, Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, and Odisha from May 17 to 21. Meanwhile, heavy rainfall is expected in Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Karnataka, and Lakshadweep during the same period.

Photo Gallery

7 Kashmir: Freshly harvested strawberries! First fruit of the season is here – PHOTOS

9 Scorching heatwaves: States issue guidelines advising people to stay indoors – PHOTOS

9 Rs 50, Rs 200, Rs 500 and Rs 2000 notes images: Here are the new currency notes released by RBI

Latest News

Bihar: Locals ransack police station after couple allegedly dies by suicide in police custody, 19 arrested

Virat Kohli on cusp of massive IPL record! In RCB vs CSK knockout, focus on King Kohli’s ‘8,000 runs’ milestone 

RCB vs CSK Knockout: Ticket prices soar, IPL 2024 complimentary passes at Rs 14,000

Traditional destinations losing appeal due to regulatory changes and rising cost of studying abroad

Four RGNUL students killed in tragic road accident on Patiala-Bhadson Road

Trending topics.

• Mutual Funds
• IPO’s Open and Upcoming 5
• Top Indices Performance
• Stock Analysis
• Financial Literacy
• Gold Rate Today
• NSE Top Gainers 1780
• NSE Top Losers 693
• BSE Top Gainers 2767
• BSE Top Losers 1271
• NSE 52-Week High 107
• NSE 52-Week Low 11
• BSE 52-Week High 190
• BSE 52-Week Low 26
• NSE Price Shocker
• NSE Volume Shocker
• BSE Price Shocker
• BSE Volume Shocker
• NSE Sellers
• BSE Sellers
• Silver Rate Today
• Petrol Rate Today
• Diesel Rate Today